Thoughts on Jacob Turner at # 5

[Hutman]

I hadn't really been following this guy, but the report from Churchill looks like he is someone we ought to consider. He's saying he may now be the top prep prospect touching 98 on the radar gun.

"After throwing a two-hit shutout yesterday, Westminster Christian Academy's (Mo.) Jacob Turner, who began the year as a potential first-round pick, is now making waves in the top 10.

Turner has been drawing crowds of scouts to his last handful of starts and has touched 98 mph on the radar gun, displaying an above-average curveball on many occasions. His velocity, curveball, solid control and the ability to be consistent with all of the above -- along with his projectable size -- have thrust Turner into the top-10 conversation.

There's reason to believe the 6-foot-4, 215-pound North Carolina commit could very well be the first prep talent off the board next month, but that could depend heavily on how clubs view the bonus demands put forth by adviser Scott Boras.

On the season, Turner is 6-1 with a 0.82 ERA and a 92-17 K/BB ratio in 45 innings."

He is a Boras guy so he will be looking for a big contract, but I wanted to see what everyone might think about him at # 5.

[Stotle]

I hadn't really been following this guy, but the report from Churchill looks like he is someone we ought to consider. He's saying he may now be the top prep prospect touching 98 on the radar gun.

"After throwing a two-hit shutout yesterday, Westminster Christian Academy's (Mo.) Jacob Turner, who began the year as a potential first-round pick, is now making waves in the top 10.

Turner has been drawing crowds of scouts to his last handful of starts and has touched 98 mph on the radar gun, displaying an above-average curveball on many occasions. His velocity, curveball, solid control and the ability to be consistent with all of the above -- along with his projectable size -- have thrust Turner into the top-10 conversation.

There's reason to believe the 6-foot-4, 215-pound North Carolina commit could very well be the first prep talent off the board next month, but that could depend heavily on how clubs view the bonus demands put forth by adviser Scott Boras.

On the season, Turner is 6-1 with a 0.82 ERA and a 92-17 K/BB ratio in 45 innings."

He is a Boras guy so he will be looking for a big contract, but I wanted to see what everyone might think about him at # 5.

I had him ranked as the 9th best pitcher, pre-season. Love his frame and stuff and he was impressive when I saw him last summer (good command). I think in a better draft he's the kind of guy that falls to the mid- to late-1st because of bonus demands. This year, the thinner class at the top could have someone coughing up the money to grab him early. Certainly someone to consider, though I think I still slot him in the 5-15 range given the probable signing demands. UNC sure knows how to recruit pitching...

[QBsILLEST1]

I had him ranked as the 9th best pitcher, pre-season. Love his frame and stuff and he was impressive when I saw him last summer (good command). I think in a better draft he's the kind of guy that falls to the mid- to late-1st because of bonus demands. This year, the thinner class at the top could have someone coughing up the money to grab him early. Certainly someone to consider, though I think I still slot him in the 5-15 range given the probable signing demands. UNC sure knows how to recruit pitching...

Taking away contract demands and everything, would you rank him above Purke and Matzek? Honestly I may rank him over Purke, but I would not rank him over Matzek. The difference in their ERA's (Matzek and Turner) is this due to the fact that Matzek pitches in a more competitive high school league? Or has he just had a few bad outings this year that affected his ERA? Turner sounds good with that big fastball and good breaking ball with good command, but he will need a third pitch which will most likely be key to his devlopment IMO.

[Stotle]

Taking away contract demands and everything, would you rank him above Purke and Matzek? Honestly I may rank him over Purke, but I would not rank him over Matzek. The difference in their ERA's (Matzek and Turner) is this due to the fact that Matzek pitches in a more competitive high school league? Or has he just had a few bad outings this year that affected his ERA? Turner sounds good with that big fastball and good breaking ball with good command, but he will need a third pitch which will most likely be key to his devlopment IMO.

I probably still take Matzek and Purke over Turner. I'm big on developed secondary stuff. Turner's 1-2 combo is pretty impressive, though.

[BringBackMagic]

I probably still take Matzek and Purke over Turner. I'm big on developed secondary stuff. Turner's 1-2 combo is pretty impressive, though.

Even in high school kids? i understand looking for more development from college pitchers because you expect them to be closer to finished products, but (and I don't know if this is true) if Turner's 1 and 2 pitches are significantly better than Matzek and Purke's, then I'll take that and teach him a third and fourth pitch.

[Stotle]

Even in high school kids? i understand looking for more development from college pitchers because you expect them to be closer to finished products, but (and I don't know if this is true) if Turner's 1 and 2 pitches are significantly better than Matzek and Purke's, then I'll take that and teach him a third and fourth pitch.

Here's the issue: Someone like Matzek has three secondary pitches that are potentially plus ML-pitches and two of which have projection as high as plus-plus. Someone like Turner may have a plus-plus fastball with a potential plus-plus breaking ball.

Given those two scenarios, I take the easy arm action and refinement of Matzek over Turner (and I'm not even saying it isn't close). Turner has to develop a ML-average third pitch from a stuff standpoint and from a command standpoint. My guess at this stage in development is that it will take more development time and effort to make Turner into a ML starter than it will for me to turn Matzek into a ML starter, even if Turner's ceiling is higher. Since Matzek's ceiling is pleanty high for me, and he's a little further along from a developmental standpoint for me, the incrimental advantage I get from the difference between Turner's ceiling and Matzek's ceiling is outwieghed by the perceived extra work I'll have to put in to make sure that Turner's floor isn't too much below Matzek's.

Now, that sort of a convoluted equation/explanation. Does it make sense? It does to me, but I don't know what others would think. Is it the right frame of mind? I don't know. But that is my thinking.

EDIT -- to be clear, this doesn't mean I take a refined HS arm whose pitch projection maxes out at 4 average offerings. Focus on the ceiling differential vs. floor differential aspect of the post.

[allstar1579]

Even in high school kids? i understand looking for more development from college pitchers because you expect them to be closer to finished products, but (and I don't know if this is true) if Turner's 1 and 2 pitches are significantly better than Matzek and Purke's, then I'll take that and teach him a third and fourth pitch.

I don't think Turner's 1 and 2 are really that much better than any two of Matzek's.

To put it in a visual sense:

Matzek Turner

1 - 7 10

2 - 9 8

3 - 9 2

4 - 5 -

Keep in mind these are fictional pitch rankings to be an approx. just to show that Matzek has more pitches with his bread and butter being the secondary stuff. You could actually make a case for his Fastball being his worst pitch behind the curve, change, and slider (which is avg. with room for improvement). On top of all that, he controls them all well.

Turner has great makeup for a dominant closer (think Papelbon), but has a lot of improvement to do on a 3rd and 4th pitch to catch up to Matzek.

[Stotle]

I don't think Turner's 1 and 2 are really that much better than any two of Matzek's.

To put it in a visual sense:

Matzek Turner

1 - 7 10

2 - 9 8

3 - 9 2

4 - 5 -

Keep in mind these are fictional pitch rankings to be an approx. just to show that Matzek has more pitches with his bread and butter being the secondary stuff. You could actually make a case for his Fastball being his worst pitch behind the curve, change, and slider (which is avg. with room for improvement). On top of all that, he controls them all well.

Turner has great makeup for a dominant closer (think Papelbon), but has a lot of improvement to do on a 3rd and 4th pitch to catch up to Matzek.

I think his slider is probably his best current secondary pitch, with his curve and change having more projection.

[crawdad]

I don't think Turner's 1 and 2 are really that much better than any two of Matzek's.

To put it in a visual sense:

Matzek Turner

1 - 7 10

2 - 9 8

3 - 9 2

4 - 5 -

Keep in mind these are fictional pitch rankings to be an approx. just to show that Matzek has more pitches with his bread and butter being the secondary stuff. You could actually make a case for his Fastball being his worst pitch behind the curve, change, and slider (which is avg. with room for improvement). On top of all that, he controls them all well.

Turner has great makeup for a dominant closer (think Papelbon), but has a lot of improvement to do on a 3rd and 4th pitch to catch up to Matzek.

I'd say Turner's fastball goes to 11.

[Stotle]

I'd say Turner's fastball goes to 11.

[allstar1579]

Come on you two, you know what I meant

[LookinUp]

I don't think Turner's 1 and 2 are really that much better than any two of Matzek's.

To put it in a visual sense:

Matzek Turner

1 - 7 10

2 - 9 8

3 - 9 2

4 - 5 -

Keep in mind these are fictional pitch rankings to be an approx. just to show that Matzek has more pitches with his bread and butter being the secondary stuff. You could actually make a case for his Fastball being his worst pitch behind the curve, change, and slider (which is avg. with room for improvement). On top of all that, he controls them all well.

Turner has great makeup for a dominant closer (think Papelbon), but has a lot of improvement to do on a 3rd and 4th pitch to catch up to Matzek.

I'd be quite interested in seeing some sort of rating like this for the top 5-7 non-Strasburg pitchers, if anyone's willing to go out on a limb. I'm thinking Matzek, Crow, Scheppers, Purke, Gibson, Turner and White.

[Hutman]

Here's the issue: Someone like Matzek has three secondary pitches that are potentially plus ML-pitches and two of which have projection as high as plus-plus. Someone like Turner may have a plus-plus fastball with a potential plus-plus breaking ball.

Given those two scenarios, I take the easy arm action and refinement of Matzek over Turner (and I'm not even saying it isn't close). Turner has to develop a ML-average third pitch from a stuff standpoint and from a command standpoint. My guess at this stage in development is that it will take more development time and effort to make Turner into a ML starter than it will for me to turn Matzek into a ML starter, even if Turner's ceiling is higher. Since Matzek's ceiling is pleanty high for me, and he's a little further along from a developmental standpoint for me, the incrimental advantage I get from the difference between Turner's ceiling and Matzek's ceiling is outwieghed by the perceived extra work I'll have to put in to make sure that Turner's floor isn't too much below Matzek's.

Now, that sort of a convoluted equation/explanation. Does it make sense? It does to me, but I don't know what others would think. Is it the right frame of mind? I don't know. But that is my thinking.

EDIT -- to be clear, this doesn't mean I take a refined HS arm whose pitch projection maxes out at 4 average offerings. Focus on the ceiling differential vs. floor differential aspect of the post.

Stotle, as always thanks for that indepth analysis. I agree that Matzek is the guy I'd want at 5, but this is one of those guys who 5 years from now we may all be kicking ourselves for not taking, but Matzek is the better pick today.

[BRob51]

I saw Turner this March at the Cocoa Beach Expo for an inning or two, he has great stuff but he lack control of any of his secondaries, at least from what little I saw. Electric fastball, but he hit a kid with a curve in the 2 IP I saw. Again, great stuff and a great change of speeds.

I realize this is the smallest of sample sizes and that I'm just a HS pitcher who's really into scouting, but thought I'd add my 2 cents.

[allstar1579]

I'd be quite interested in seeing some sort of rating like this for the top 5-7 non-Strasburg pitchers, if anyone's willing to go out on a limb. I'm thinking Matzek, Crow, Scheppers, Purke, Gibson, Turner and White.

Are we talking current pitch ratings or potential ratings? And Stotle and Craw, I'd need some help with that one.