Baseball America Posts BAL Top 10

[Frobby]

Seems to me RShack is right. It's Tillman who has to catch up to Matusz, whose "feel for pitching" gives him the advantage right now over Tillman who has slightly better stuff. Tillman may pass Matusz eventually, but right now Matusz is better equipped to succeed as a major league pitcher.

[hoosiers]

Seems to me RShack is right. It's Tillman who has to catch up to Matusz, whose "feel for pitching" gives him the advantage right now over Tillman who has slightly better stuff. Tillman may pass Matusz eventually, but right now Matusz is better equipped to succeed as a major league pitcher.

Lingo was not talking about "now". He was responding to a question of why BA put Tillman as the Os ace in 2013 ahead of Matusz. The answer was better stuff and more accomplished at a younger age.

Rshack's allowed his opinion, but to be clear, he's advocating against someone who is about 200 times more informed on the subject.

[Stotle]

Seems to me RShack is right. It's Tillman who has to catch up to Matusz, whose "feel for pitching" gives him the advantage right now over Tillman who has slightly better stuff. Tillman may pass Matusz eventually, but right now Matusz is better equipped to succeed as a major league pitcher.

I agree. BA had Tillman ahead in last year's rankings, so it doesn't surprise me that Lingo still has him there. But there is plenty of room for others to feel differently. I'd say Tony is pretty in-tune with some knowledgeable people in the organization, and he posted this earlier this year regarding Tillman being untouchable:

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1965142&postcount=61

I don't think he is. There are those within the organization that think he might be a 4th starter type when it all said and done.

So, while BA does a great job, plenty of people can disagree with their final say. I think the onus is still on Tillman to pass Matusz. Regarding 2013, Matusz won't match Tillman's ceiling unless he learns to throw a little harder, but I think his high floor makes him a favorite to still be the best pitcher in the BAL rotation at that point. Just my humble opinion -- I know why Lingo feels differently and it's certainly valid.

[mcgraw238]

Assuming no injuries, if Tillman ends up being the better of Matusz and himself, then the top of our rotation is going to be great.

[orioole28]

No way is Givens playing SS there in 2013. I highly, highly doubt he's there in 2015. Or 2018 or 2020. He might, MIGHT see Bowie. But if you can't hit .400 in HS ball, when you're a year or two or three years older than most everyone else, how the heck are you going to hit pro pitching? It's simply false.

That's BA for you!

[Frobby]

Regarding 2013, Matusz won't match Tillman's ceiling unless he learns to throw a little harder, but I think his high floor makes him a favorite to still be the best pitcher in the BAL rotation at that point. Just my humble opinion -- I know why Lingo feels differently and it's certainly valid.

I get a little confused by what is meant by "ceiling" at times. Is Matusz going to be Randy Johnson? No. Could he be Tom Glavine? Yes. Is there much difference between what the two accomplished in their careers? Not really. I don't think Tillman's ceiling is that much higher than Matusz's.

[Stotle]

I get a little confused by what is meant by "ceiling" at times. Is Matusz going to be Randy Johnson? No. Could he be Tom Glavine? Yes. Is there much difference between what the two accomplished in their careers? Not really. I don't think Tillman's ceiling is that much higher than Matusz's.

Ceiling = package if all room for growth is satiated.

In your example, think Johnson in the early 90's when he was still all over the place with his control. He had the ceiling of one of the best pitchers in baseball, but needed to refine his command to try and reach the ceiling. If Matusz's stuff is maxed-out, and Tillman theoretically could add velo and improved command, he likely has a higher ceiling (his highest total package of tools is greater than Matusz's).

I don't think anyone was arguing that Tillman's ceiling is that much higher than Matusz's. I think (and have stated) Matusz is now and will be the better of the two. I'm just stating Lingo's opinion, and why (room for Tillman to improve is probably more than room for Matusz to improve) I think Lingo holds that position.

Another example. Chapman has a ceiling of a number one starter -- better than Matusz if he commands his slider/change and upper-90s fastball. He's young, so most evaluators would say he has a couple years to work on all of that, and the results could be astounding. That "ceiling" doesn't speak at all to the likelihood of reaching it, or what his "floor" is if development stalls out at some point.

EDIT -- And while both Glavine and Johnson were great, Johnson was the better overall pitcher. I'd rather have him on my staff than I would Glavine.

Career:

Glavine/Johnson

BB/9 - 3.1/3.3

SO/9 - 5.3/10.6

SO/BB - 1.74/3.26

H/9 - 8.8/7.3

WHIP - 1.314/1.171

ERA+ - 118/136

[Lucky Jim]

I agree. BA had Tillman ahead in last year's rankings, so it doesn't surprise me that Lingo still has him there. But there is plenty of room for others to feel differently. I'd say Tony is pretty in-tune with some knowledgeable people in the organization, and he posted this earlier this year regarding Tillman being untouchable:

http://forum.orioleshangout.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1965142&postcount=61

So, while BA does a great job, plenty of people can disagree with their final say. I think the onus is still on Tillman to pass Matusz. Regarding 2013, Matusz won't match Tillman's ceiling unless he learns to throw a little harder, but I think his high floor makes him a favorite to still be the best pitcher in the BAL rotation at that point. Just my humble opinion -- I know why Lingo feels differently and it's certainly valid.

I don't disagree with any of this. I just happen to have fewer concerns about Tillman's fastball (his problem last year was location more than movement by what I've seen on PitchFX) and I'm bullish on his CB and change. I think his body is more projectable, and that he'll add some velocity over time.

I think there's room for disagreement. I don't think there's room to say someone has it "backwards" or "wrong." The point of the exercise is projection. (Which is why you don't see Blake Davis ahead of Givens at SS.) As Tillman ages, the window for projection decreases. Thus, Matusz's feel will begin to outweigh Tillman's diminishing upside. That's the equation, I think. And other folks seem to agree. For instance, here's BP on the O's talent under 25:

1. Matt Wieters, C

2. Adam Jones, CF

3. Chris Tillman, RHP

4. Brian Matusz, LHP

5. Felix Pie, OF

6. Josh Bell, 3B

7. Jake Arrieta, RHP

8. Zach Britton, LHP

9. Matt Hobgood, RHP

10. Brandon Erbe, RHP

[Stotle]

I don't disagree with any of this. I just happen to have fewer concerns about Tillman's fastball (his problem last year was location more than movement by what I've seen on PitchFX) and I'm bullish on his CB and change. I think his body is more projectable, and that he'll add some velocity over time.

I think there's room for disagreement. I don't think there's room to say someone has it "backwards" or "wrong." The point of the exercise is projection. As Tillman ages, the window for projection decreases. Thus, Matusz's feel will begin to outweigh Tillman's diminishing upside. That's the equation, I think. And other folks seem to agree. For instance, here's BP on the O's talent under 25:

Is what I was getting at -- younger players are given more room with regards to projection. Tillman's age and room for growth are what give him the higher "ceiling".

Re: Tillman's stuff -- I was trumpeting his secondary stuff back to the start of last season, so I'm definitely a huge fan. I think Matusz has a better idea of what he's doing right now, and better command across the board. Time will tell, but I've thought for a while Matusz would be better. Tillman's change-up last season made me really consider whether I still held that view -- but I still like Matusz by a hair.

[Lucky Jim]

Is what I was getting at -- younger players are given more room with regards to projection. Tillman's age and room for growth are what give him the higher "ceiling".

Re: Tillman's stuff -- I was trumpeting his secondary stuff back to the start of last season, so I'm definitely a huge fan. I think Matusz has a better idea of what he's doing right now, and better command across the board. Time will tell, but I've thought for a while Matusz would be better. Tillman's change-up last season made me really consider whether I still held that view -- but I still like Matusz by a hair.

I mean, it's a great dilemma. And I fully agree w/ anyone who thinks that Tillman is a bigger risk of failure than Matusz. He most definitely is. I would probably trade Tillman before Matusz. But wouldn't actually trade either.

And sorry - I wasn't trying to comment in contradiction to your post. Just glossing on it in the context of the larger conversation.

[Stotle]

I mean, it's a great dilemma. And I fully agree w/ anyone who thinks that Tillman is a bigger risk of failure than Matusz. He most definitely is. I would probably trade Tillman before Matusz. But wouldn't actually trade either.

And sorry - I wasn't trying to comment in contradiction to your post. Just glossing on it in the context of the larger conversation.

No apology necessary. I don't remember your "mother superior" line, or else I'd throw it in right about here.

[Frobby]

Ceiling = package if all room for growth is satiated.

In your example, think Johnson in the early 90's when he was still all over the place with his control. He had the ceiling of one of the best pitchers in baseball, but needed to refine his command to try and reach the ceiling. If Matusz's stuff is maxed-out, and Tillman theoretically could add velo and improved command, he likely has a higher ceiling (his highest total package of tools is greater than Matusz's).

I don't think anyone was arguing that Tillman's ceiling is that much higher than Matusz's. I think (and have stated) Matusz is now and will be the better of the two. I'm just stating Lingo's opinion, and why (room for Tillman to improve is probably more than room for Matusz to improve) I think Lingo holds that position.

Another example. Chapman has a ceiling of a number one starter -- better than Matusz if he commands his slider/change and upper-90s fastball. He's young, so most evaluators would say he has a couple years to work on all of that, and the results could be astounding. That "ceiling" doesn't speak at all to the likelihood of reaching it, or what his "floor" is if development stalls out at some point.

EDIT -- And while both Glavine and Johnson were great, Johnson was the better overall pitcher. I'd rather have him on my staff than I would Glavine.

Career:

Glavine/Johnson

BB/9 - 3.1/3.3

SO/9 - 5.3/10.6

SO/BB - 1.74/3.26

H/9 - 8.8/7.3

WHIP - 1.314/1.171

ERA+ - 118/136

Thanks for this. It's interesting, I wouldn't have guessed that Johnson's BB/9 was that close to Glavine's, or that his ERA+ was that much higher. Certainly Johnson at his peak was an animal, but he did have those early years where he struggled a bit, and he wan't all that great the last 3-4 years either.

My main point is that Matusz can still have a pretty high ceiling -- even a Hall of Fame ceiling -- even if he doesn't throw in the mid-90's. Not to say he will be the next Glavine, but there's a lot of potential there IMO.

[RShack]

Lingo was not talking about "now". He was responding to a question of why BA put Tillman as the Os ace in 2013 ahead of Matusz. The answer was better stuff and more accomplished at a younger age.

Rshack's allowed his opinion, but to be clear, he's advocating against someone who is about 200 times more informed on the subject.

Prior to last season, what was Lingo's opinion of Bergesen?

[Lucky Jim]

This will go down a predictable path.

[Stotle]

This will go down a predictable path.

I think BA is misunderstood by a lot of posters.

1. They are VERY careful to be conservative, generally relying almost exclusively on what the hear from people in the industry.

2. They aren't just throwing up personal opinions -- they crosscheck with scouts/front office people on their player reports.

3. The largest margin for error is probably in the rankings, where they are attempting to quantify reports they've compiled and assign a value to the player.

The takeaway, I think is that:

1) Baseball America is essentially reporting what the industry thinks of MiL prospects -- of course the industry can be wrong, but as a source it's probably the best at identifying the current value of a player as seen by baseball as a whole.

2) The rankings are imperfect and subject to the personal biases of the individuals preparing the lists. Manuel, for example, tends to place Yankees players higher on the overall lists, while Callis tends to err on the side of the Red Sox players and Lingo generally has BAL players rated higher than does Manuel or Callis. It's natural to value the familiar more highly than the unfamiliar -- we see this in practice with teams unwilling to part with their prospects in trades.

Bottom line, it's legit to question rankings from BA but they are (I think) the most credibile source for a snap-shot of a player's skill set and current value.