October 29, 200619 yr A guy to watch a few years from now, Deolis Guerra. BaseballAmerica had him pegged as the next big pitching prospect in the mold of Feliz Hernandez.
November 1, 200619 yr Predictions on potencial? Every baseball player has potencial, I bet half of these guys metioned will not even be a STAR pitcher!
November 1, 200619 yr 7. Carlos Zambrano No. :whistle Yeah, you're right. He probably should be a little higher up. :whistle :thumbup haha This guy sounds a little biased........................
November 1, 200619 yr Johan Santana is by far the best. And its funny how people forget about the best pitcher in the National League Roy Oswalt.
November 1, 200619 yr Johan Santana is by far the best. And its funny how people forget about the best pitcher in the National League Roy Oswalt. 5 years from now Roy will be 34 Not saying he can't be a top 20 pitcher, but I can see why he is left off many people's lists
November 2, 200619 yr A guy to watch a few years from now, Deolis Guerra. BaseballAmerica had him pegged as the next big pitching prospect in the mold of Feliz Hernandez. Yea, uh no. Not even close, sorry. The guy throws a good changeup, and not much else. The thing about throwing a good changeup in single A ball, is the majority of hitters have never seen one that is even close to above average. Thus causing great stats for a guy who really doesn't have much beyond that change. A 64/34 K/BB in 82 innings pitch isn't so great anyways. (low single A stats)
November 2, 200619 yr Halladay, Oswalt and Webb are top 20 pitchers right now and they are relatively young and should continue to be top 20 pitchers 5 years from now. Wang also belongs on the 5 years from now list.
November 2, 200619 yr Halladay, Oswalt and Webb are top 20 pitchers right now and they are relatively young and should continue to be top 20 pitchers 5 years from now. Wang also belongs on the 5 years from now list. Count me as one who believes Wang's year was a fluke. I'd put good money on him having an ERA north of 4.30.
November 2, 200619 yr And Chien Ming Wang shouldn't be anywhere near this list...he'll be out of baseball five years from now :lol :lol :lol Ooooooooooooooook. 7. Carlos Zambrano No. :whistle Yeah, you're right. He probably should be a little higher up. :whistle Once again, no. I'd put Zambrano about 30th. Yeah, you're right...this year, at 25, he was only the best pitcher in the National League (before he got hurt down the stretch), and five years from now will probably be his peak Contradict much? Wang's 25. First of all, Wang's 26 Second of all, Wang is proof that it's more important to be lucky than good...the guy's stuff sucks, period...76 strikeouts in 218 innings...that's all i need to say 19 wins, 218.0 innings, 52 walks. Fewer BB's to K's, fewer than three walks a game and over 200 innings, yeah, he sucks. In the Bill James Baseball Handbook, he shows that there has never really been a truly successful long term pitcher who didn't strike out at least the league average per nine. The league average per nine was like 6 or something. He struck out about 3.4 per nine. You simply cannot have long term success when you rely that much on your defense. And the 52 walks don't look that good next to the 76 k's. Thats a terrible ratio. Whoever put Daniel Cabrera on his list must be smoking something. The guy can't find the strike zone.
November 2, 200619 yr In the Bill James Baseball Handbook, he shows that there has never really been a truly successful long term pitcher who didn't strike out at least the league average per nine. What about Maddux? He's pretty good isn't he?
November 2, 200619 yr In the Bill James Baseball Handbook, he shows that there has never really been a truly successful long term pitcher who didn't strike out at least the league average per nine. What about Maddux? He's pretty good isn't he? Just because he doesn't throw 99 MPH doesn't mean he doesn't strike guys out. He was in the top 10 in k/9 three times in the early 90's. He was in the top 10 in strikeouts 7 different times. He's 12th of all time in strikeouts. Terrible. Terrible. Terrible. Terrible. Example.
November 2, 200619 yr In the Bill James Baseball Handbook, he shows that there has never really been a truly successful long term pitcher who didn't strike out at least the league average per nine. What about Maddux? He's pretty good isn't he? Just because he doesn't throw 99 MPH doesn't mean he doesn't strike guys out. He was in the top 10 in k/9 three times in the early 90's. He was in the top 10 in strikeouts 7 different times. He's 12th of all time in strikeouts. Terrible. Terrible. Terrible. Terrible. Example. In his career Maddux has averaged 6.18 Ks per 9 innings. The NL average is about 6.70 Ks per 9 inning. Last time I checked 6.18 was less than 6.70 and last time I checked Maddux has had a pretty good career. Please explain why this is a terrible example.
November 2, 200619 yr In the Bill James Baseball Handbook, he shows that there has never really been a truly successful long term pitcher who didn't strike out at least the league average per nine. What about Maddux? He's pretty good isn't he? Just because he doesn't throw 99 MPH doesn't mean he doesn't strike guys out. He was in the top 10 in k/9 three times in the early 90's. He was in the top 10 in strikeouts 7 different times. He's 12th of all time in strikeouts. Terrible. Terrible. Terrible. Terrible. Example. In his career Maddux has averaged 6.18 Ks per 9 innings. The NL average is about 6.70 Ks per 9 inning. Last time I checked 6.18 was less than 6.70 and last time I checked Maddux has had a pretty good career. Please explain why this is a terrible example. Because the 6.18 number is hurt by his relatively low strikeout totals in the past 5 years. Also, he has been in the top 10 in K/BB ration every year since 1991 except 2002. That can help offset it. And strikeout totals were much lower in the first half of his career than the last, so he was better than the league average for most of the first half. Most pitchers tend to lose k's as they get older.
November 2, 200619 yr In the Bill James Baseball Handbook, he shows that there has never really been a truly successful long term pitcher who didn't strike out at least the league average per nine. What about Maddux? He's pretty good isn't he? Just because he doesn't throw 99 MPH doesn't mean he doesn't strike guys out. He was in the top 10 in k/9 three times in the early 90's. He was in the top 10 in strikeouts 7 different times. He's 12th of all time in strikeouts. Terrible. Terrible. Terrible. Terrible. Example. In his career Maddux has averaged 6.18 Ks per 9 innings. The NL average is about 6.70 Ks per 9 inning. Last time I checked 6.18 was less than 6.70 and last time I checked Maddux has had a pretty good career. Please explain why this is a terrible example. Because the 6.18 number is hurt by his relatively low strikeout totals in the past 5 years. Also, he has been in the top 10 in K/BB ration every year since 1991 except 2002. That can help offset it. And strikeout totals were much lower in the first half of his career than the last, so he was better than the league average for most of the first half. Most pitchers tend to lose k's as they get older. Up through the '01 season (and thus removing the past 5 seasons) Maddux averaged 6.39 Ks per 9 innings. Last time I ckecked 6.39 is less than 6.70.
November 2, 200619 yr In the Bill James Baseball Handbook, he shows that there has never really been a truly successful long term pitcher who didn't strike out at least the league average per nine. What about Maddux? He's pretty good isn't he? Just because he doesn't throw 99 MPH doesn't mean he doesn't strike guys out. He was in the top 10 in k/9 three times in the early 90's. He was in the top 10 in strikeouts 7 different times. He's 12th of all time in strikeouts. Terrible. Terrible. Terrible. Terrible. Example. In his career Maddux has averaged 6.18 Ks per 9 innings. The NL average is about 6.70 Ks per 9 inning. Last time I checked 6.18 was less than 6.70 and last time I checked Maddux has had a pretty good career. Please explain why this is a terrible example. Because the 6.18 number is hurt by his relatively low strikeout totals in the past 5 years. Also, he has been in the top 10 in K/BB ration every year since 1991 except 2002. That can help offset it. And strikeout totals were much lower in the first half of his career than the last, so he was better than the league average for most of the first half. Most pitchers tend to lose k's as they get older. Up through the '01 season (and thus removing the past 5 seasons) Maddux averaged 6.39 Ks per 9 innings. Last time I ckecked 6.39 is less than 6.70. He has been in the top 10 in K/BB ration every year since 1991 except 2002. That can help offset it. And strikeout totals were much lower in the first half of his career than the last, so he was better than the league average for most of the first half. Most pitchers tend to lose k's as they get older. 6.70 was the league average last year. What was it in 1991 when he struck out 6.78 and was 6th in the majors? Probably not 6.70. Also, we are trying to find the difference between a guy who strikes out 6.2 per 9 and walks 2 per nine, whereas Wang strikes out 3.4 per nine and walks like 3 per nine. It's not even close.
November 3, 200619 yr The bottom line is you seem to believe that for a pitcher to be any good long term he needs to K more hitters per 9 innings than the league average. That's nonsense. Maddux and Glavine are first ballot hall of famers and in their careers they've K fewer hitters per 9 innings than the league average. The average is calculated by dividing total Ks by total innings and not by cherry picking the years that support your argument.
November 3, 200619 yr The bottom line is you seem to believe that for a pitcher to be any good long term he needs to K more hitters per 9 innings than the league average. That's nonsense. Maddux and Glavine are first ballot hall of famers and in their careers they've K fewer hitters per 9 innings than the league average. The average is calculated by dividing total Ks by total innings and not by cherry picking the years that support your argument. I'm saying that almost every single pitcher that has had any kind of long term success in his entire career has been at or better than the league average per nine at the beginning of their career. It is almost garaunteed that a pitcher who strikes out 4 per nine will no be a good pitcher for a long time. You seem to completely deny the fact that the average for k/9 has gone up since they began their careers almost 20 years ago. You must not watch baseball. In 1987, Greg Maddux struck out 6 per nine when the league average was 6. He's had numerous years amongst the league leaders. Also, if a pitcher can have amazing control like Maddux or Glavine have, they can survive and thrive with a relatively low strikeout total (and by relatively low, I mean league average). If a pitcher can strike out 6 per nine and only walk 2 or 3, it makes their strikeouts that much more important, since the average on balls in play isn't truly in their control.
November 3, 200619 yr Maddux and Glavine came into the league in '86 and '87, respectively. The NL average in Ks per 9 innings since '86 and '87 are 6.43 and 6.45, respectively. Maddux's and Glavine's career K per 9 innings are 6.18 and 5.02, respectively. That's the raw data. It's crystal clear that both future hall of famers K fewer hitters per 9 innings than the league average.
November 3, 200619 yr Maddux and Glavine came into the league in '86 and '87, respectively. The NL average in Ks per 9 innings since '86 and '87 are 6.43 and 6.45, respectively. Maddux's and Glavine's career K per 9 innings are 6.18 and 5.02, respectively. That's the raw data. It's crystal clear that both future hall of famers K fewer hitters per 9 innings than the league average. "The influence of strikeouts on a pitcher's future can be compared to the effect of height on a man's chances of playing in the NBA... It's not that ALL seven-footers can play in the NBA, and it isn't true that height is everything. There are other factors, but if you studied the American male population, you could very easily establish that the percentage of men who play in the NBA increases substantially with each one inch of increase in height. The same is true here: there are other factors in having a long career, but if you study the issue, you can easily establish that pitchers who strike out four men per nine innings last longer than pitchers who strike out three men per nine innings, that pitchers who strike out five men per nine innings last longer than those who strike out four... and so on without end."
November 3, 200619 yr Maddux and Glavine came into the league in '86 and '87, respectively. The NL average in Ks per 9 innings since '86 and '87 are 6.43 and 6.45, respectively. Maddux's and Glavine's career K per 9 innings are 6.18 and 5.02, respectively. That's the raw data. It's crystal clear that both future hall of famers K fewer hitters per 9 innings than the league average. the majority of pitchers with extended careers excel at K/9. I dont know how you can deny this without wilfully ignoring the data.
November 4, 200619 yr Maddux and Glavine came into the league in '86 and '87, respectively. The NL average in Ks per 9 innings since '86 and '87 are 6.43 and 6.45, respectively. Maddux's and Glavine's career K per 9 innings are 6.18 and 5.02, respectively. That's the raw data. It's crystal clear that both future hall of famers K fewer hitters per 9 innings than the league average. the majority of pitchers with extended careers excel at K/9. I dont know how you can deny this without wilfully ignoring the data. Because Greg Maddux is very obviously the rule, and not the exception.
November 4, 200619 yr Maddux and Glavine came into the league in '86 and '87, respectively. The NL average in Ks per 9 innings since '86 and '87 are 6.43 and 6.45, respectively. Maddux's and Glavine's career K per 9 innings are 6.18 and 5.02, respectively. That's the raw data. It's crystal clear that both future hall of famers K fewer hitters per 9 innings than the league average. the majority of pitchers with extended careers excel at K/9. I dont know how you can deny this without wilfully ignoring the data. I agree with you 100% so I have nothing to deny. I've only argued against this ridiculous comment: there has never really been a truly successful long term pitcher who didn't strike out at least the league average per nine.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.