Texas Rangers Thread

[Stautner]

No, I don't expect them to be duking it out for the Cy Young, but I also know that Harrison's ceiling when he was a Braves prospect was no higher than a #3 starter and Ogando ought to be in the pen. So color me skeptical. I think that as the season wears on, we'll be thankful for Tommy Hunter's return. At least Holland has ace/#2 potential, so he's at least got pedigree.

And Cliff Lee was drafted 1 round later (4th round) than Harrison (3rd round), so that tells us early projections are etched in stone, right? Roy Oswalt was drafted in the 23rd round. Andy Petitt in the 22nd round. Hell, Jonathon Paplebon was taken in the 4th round of the same draft as Harrison.

Besides, since when is being projected as a No. 3 starter in the major leagues a negative thing? I would be thrilled with that from Harrison, Hunter or Ogondo

Look around - it's very common that MLB teams, including pitching staffs, are filled out largely by players who developed, but did not start out with elite pedigrees. Of course some do, but there are lots of players on every team that were not top players from the beginning but developed into quality players.

And, again, starting out as a 3rd round draft pick and projected as a No. 3 starer isn't exactly a bad beginning.

And, as for your fixation with "pedigree", what about all the Latin pitchers that have done so well over the years? Why not Ogondo? What do you know about his pedigree that makes it worse than anyone else coming out of Venezuela or the Dominican Repubplic or some other Latin American Country? Besides, you wrote him off after one subar performance and he came right back and threw yet another stellar game next time out.

I understand skepticism. There is always room for skepticism with players that don't have a lot of major league experience or history behind them. But there is also room for optimism, and I don't understand watching guys pitch exceptionally well over and over and not holding onto any optimism. If we were only talking about 1 or 2 outstanding games that would be one thing, but these guys have had an outstanding month.

That said, I agree that we will be happy to have Hunter back too. Certainly there is a reasonable possibility that one or more of the trio of Holland/Ogondo/Harrison will falter, and even without that there will be some injuries along the way, so Hunter will be a great insurance policy either way.

 

[WDN]

Tonights game scares me.

1. Colby is pitching and he is giving up the longball.

2. Have to face a redhot Bautista.

3. Facing a rookie pitcher and the first time through we tend to make them look like Cy Young.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Tonights game scares me.

1. Colby is pitching and he is giving up the longball.

2. Have to face a redhot Bautista.

3. Facing a rookie pitcher and the first time through we tend to make them look like Cy Young.

You forgot, the Rangers defense has been like swiss cheese lately. That doesn't help. Prior to last nights game the Rangers had 9 errors in 4 games. (4, 2, 2, 1)

 

[DIAF]

And Cliff Lee was drafted 1 round later (4th round) than Harrison (3rd round), so that tells us early projections are etched in stone, right? Roy Oswalt was drafted in the 23rd round. Andy Petitt in the 22nd round. Hell, Jonathon Paplebon was taken in the 4th round of the same draft as Harrison.

Besides, since when is being projected as a No. 3 starter in the major leagues a negative thing? I would be thrilled with that from Harrison, Hunter or Ogondo

Look around - it's very common that MLB teams, including pitching staffs, are filled out largely by players who developed, but did not start out with elite pedigrees. Of course some do, but there are lots of players on every team that were not top players from the beginning but developed into quality players.

And, again, starting out as a 3rd round draft pick and projected as a No. 3 starer isn't exactly a bad beginning.

And, as for your fixation with "pedigree", what about all the Latin pitchers that have done so well over the years? Why not Ogondo? What do you know about his pedigree that makes it worse than anyone else coming out of Venezuela or the Dominican Repubplic or some other Latin American Country? Besides, you wrote him off after one subar performance and he came right back and threw yet another stellar game next time out.

I understand skepticism. There is always room for skepticism with players that don't have a lot of major league experience or history behind them. But there is also room for optimism, and I don't understand watching guys pitch exceptionally well over and over and not holding onto any optimism. If we were only talking about 1 or 2 outstanding games that would be one thing, but these guys have had an outstanding month.

That said, I agree that we will be happy to have Hunter back too. Certainly there is a reasonable possibility that one or more of the trio of Holland/Ogondo/Harrison will falter, and even without that there will be some injuries along the way, so Hunter will be a great insurance policy either way.

Dude, there's more to a "pedigree" than where you were drafted. This isn't football. Where you were drafted means less in baseball than it does in any other sport. As Matt Harrison moved up the minor league ranks and got closer to the majors, it was pretty apparent that he wasn't going to be the potential ace you look for in the early rounds. Matt Harrison's projected to be no higher than a #3 starter. Meaning that in the eyes of scouts, that was likely his best case scenario. Meaning there's still a pretty good chance he'll be worse than that. Derek Holland is no sure thing either, but at least was regarded as an ace/#2 starter ceiling player the closer he got to the majors. I'd say the chances of Holland being garbage are far less than Harrison's or Ogando's. Ogando's projections were to be a back-of-the-bullpen reliever or a closer, (2-pitch pitcher with one of them being an electric fastball, and mechanics that might produce some injury risk) not so much a starting pitcher.

Hunter's already had success at this level and doesn't have any of this uncertainty surrounding what kind of pitcher he is. Harrison and Ogando, there's a better-than-even chance they are going to implode as starters. I'd rather have Tommy out there than one of them.

 

[DIAF]

I hope so, I really like Holland. My advice would be to move Ogando/Harrison back to the bullpen if/when Hunter earns his spot back because that has to be our weakest aspect of the team right? We have good starters, they wont LOSE us any games and we have a closer. I have zero faith in Oday and Oliver, or Kirkman for that matter. Rhodes and Strop look decent, even though Rhodes wasn't great his last outing. Apparently they are bringing Tomko up too.

It is by FAR. I actually think that Ogando is our future closer....I'd like to see Feliz moved to the rotation and have Ogando take over the 9th eventually. For now, though, we could have him come in and throw nothing but 98mph gas and that great slider that murders RH batters in the 8th inning, and use Oliver/O'Day in less pressure situations. Kirkman needs to bake a bit longer. Tomko, bleh.

 

[YosemiteSam]

It is by FAR. I actually think that Ogando is our future closer....I'd like to see Feliz moved to the rotation and have Ogando take over the 9th eventually. For now, though, we could have him come in and throw nothing but 98mph gas and that great slider that murders RH batters in the 8th inning, and use Oliver/O'Day in less pressure situations. Kirkman needs to bake a bit longer. Tomko, bleh.

I think Ogando's future will be as a starter. He is currently at 7.12 strikeouts per nine innings. A pitcher that can average over 7 strikeouts per nine innings is generally (meaning baring injuries) a long term dominating starting pitcher.

Tommy Hunter averages like 5.1 strikeouts per nine innings over his career so far. (250+ innings) That tells me, he is far less likely to be a long term dominate starter in the majors. I also don't believe Hunter has the mentality to do it.

Matt Harrison averages only 5 strikeouts per nine innings.

Derek Holland averages 7.53 strikeouts per nine innings. This kid also has a very good chance on being one of the leagues best dominate lefties.

For comparison, CJ Wilson average 8 strikeouts per nine innings. Colby Lewis averages 7.5 strikeouts per nine.

IMO, Harrison and Hunter's futures are in the bullpen. Ogando and Derek Holland will be staples in the starting rotation before it's all said and done.

As a starter, you want pitchers that can strike people out. Some excel at it and some do not. Those that do not, you don't want to be long term starters. The reason is, the opposing lineup will see that same pitcher 2-4 times during the game. The more he sees him higher the probability of the player doing damage offensively. A prolific strikeout pitcher strikes people out even when they know what is coming. That is what makes them so great and that is why you want your starting pitchers to average at least 7 strikeouts per nine innings. (7 strikeouts the bar)

 

[Stautner]

Dude, there's more to a "pedigree" than where you were drafted. This isn't football. Where you were drafted means less in baseball than it does in any other sport. As Matt Harrison moved up the minor league ranks and got closer to the majors, it was pretty apparent that he wasn't going to be the potential ace you look for in the early rounds. Matt Harrison's projected to be no higher than a #3 starter. Meaning that in the eyes of scouts, that was likely his best case scenario. Meaning there's still a pretty good chance he'll be worse than that. Derek Holland is no sure thing either, but at least was regarded as an ace/#2 starter ceiling player the closer he got to the majors. I'd say the chances of Holland being garbage are far less than Harrison's or Ogando's. Ogando's projections were to be a back-of-the-bullpen reliever or a closer, (2-pitch pitcher with one of them being an electric fastball, and mechanics that might produce some injury risk) not so much a starting pitcher.

Hunter's already had success at this level and doesn't have any of this uncertainty surrounding what kind of pitcher he is. Harrison and Ogando, there's a better-than-even chance they are going to implode as starters. I'd rather have Tommy out there than one of them.

So, if the pedigree you talk about isn't there, then there is no reason for optimism? There is no possibility that a player who doesn't get tabbed in Single A ball as having "ace" potential can become a strong major league pitcher? A lot of higly successful major leaguers are proof that isn't true. Once again, if you look around the major leagues, rosters are filled with guys that didn't start off as aces or the top prosspects in the system, but that developed. It's common in baseball.

Did you ever stop to wonder why there are so many rounds in the MLB draft? It's because MLB te4ams know that more than any other sport - MUCH MORE - that the development is what determines how the player will perform as much as the talent. If you don't think that's true you aren't aware of how things go in baseball.

You don't condemn a guy because early in his minor league days he was only projected as a No. 3 guy at best. If he had that as his ceiling when he was in the Braves system 3 years ago, the fact that he has pitched way beyond that, and in fact pitched like an ace for the 1st month of the season should make you damn optimistic that AT LEAST being a strong No. 3 is possible, and why in the world would you sneeze at that?

No team has the luxury of trotting out 5 pitchers that were all rated as aces from their early minor league days - if that's a qualification then nobody would ever have a strong pitching staff. Of course the odds are higher with a guy drafted higher and who somebody declares early on is a top prospect, but it is FAR from etched in stone.

And again, where is your logic witho Ogondo? He came out of a Latin American country like MANY highly successful major league pitchers have in the past - and he did so with an upper 90's fastball in tow. Why would his "pedigree" be so much below others who have come out of Latin American sountires.

As I've said, I understand skepticism - it always applies when there is little history at the major league level to judge from, and admittedly applies more so to a guy who isn't considered "ace" material. But is "ace" material really the fianl say judging point? Of course not - many teams don't even have a true ace, much less several of them. If the guy has the potential to be a solid No. 3 why in the world would anyone sneeze at that? Even if he falls short and only becomes a solid No. 4 or 5, that's still nothing to sneeze at - every team needs those.

Optimism doesn't preclude keeping a close eye on a guy, it just means recognizing what they are doing and that there is a chance they could be solid MLB players.

 

[Stautner]

Dude, there's more to a "pedigree" than where you were drafted. This isn't football. Where you were drafted means less in baseball than it does in any other sport. As Matt Harrison moved up the minor league ranks and got closer to the majors, it was pretty apparent that he wasn't going to be the potential ace you look for in the early rounds. Matt Harrison's projected to be no higher than a #3 starter. Meaning that in the eyes of scouts, that was likely his best case scenario. Meaning there's still a pretty good chance he'll be worse than that. Derek Holland is no sure thing either, but at least was regarded as an ace/#2 starter ceiling player the closer he got to the majors. I'd say the chances of Holland being garbage are far less than Harrison's or Ogando's. Ogando's projections were to be a back-of-the-bullpen reliever or a closer, (2-pitch pitcher with one of them being an electric fastball, and mechanics that might produce some injury risk) not so much a starting pitcher.

Hunter's already had success at this level and doesn't have any of this uncertainty surrounding what kind of pitcher he is. Harrison and Ogando, there's a better-than-even chance they are going to implode as starters. I'd rather have Tommy out there than one of them.

I think Ogando's future will be as a starter. He is currently at 7.12 strikeouts per nine innings. A pitcher that can average over 7 strikeouts per nine innings is generally (meaning baring injuries) a long term dominating starting pitcher.

Tommy Hunter averages like 5.1 strikeouts per nine innings over his career so far. (250+ innings) That tells me, he is far less likely to be a long term dominate starter in the majors. I also don't believe Hunter has the mentality to do it.

Matt Harrison averages only 5 strikeouts per nine innings.

Derek Holland averages 7.53 strikeouts per nine innings. This kid also has a very good chance on being one of the leagues best dominate lefties.

For comparison, CJ Wilson average 8 strikeouts per nine innings. Colby Lewis averages 7.5 strikeouts per nine.

IMO, Harrison and Hunter's futures are in the bullpen. Ogando and Derek Holland will be staples in the starting rotation before it's all said and done.

As a starter, you want pitchers that can strike people out. Some excel at it and some do not. Those that do not, you don't want to be long term starters. The reason is, the opposing lineup will see that same pitcher 2-4 times during the game. The more he sees him higher the probability of the player doing damage offensively. A prolific strikeout pitcher strikes people out even when they know what is coming. That is what makes them so great and that is why you want your starting pitchers to average at least 7 strikeouts per nine innings. (7 strikeouts the bar)

Strikeout aern't really such a strong judge of who will be a quality starter. It is A factor, but not the predominant factor. I would take Greg Maddux in his prime over almost any pitcher I can think of in the last 30 years.

Besides, it's way off base to treat this as a discussion about dominant starters - there are very few of those in baseball at all. We are just talking about bring a quality starter and capable of holding a prominant position in your pitching rotation.

Right now we have 6 guys that are all potential long term solutions in the rotation. Yes, some may falter, but for now there is plenty of reason for optimism.

And that's where i don't understand DIAF. How can you discount guys based on someone deciding they didn't have "ACE" potential at an early stage in his minor league career? Very few have that "ACE" potential to begin with, and no team is counting on "ACE" potential to fill out a 5 man rotation. In addition, some that become an "ACE" develop it rather than start with it. And like I said, Ogondo throws upper 90's (I've seen him reach 100 mph), so where is this lack of talent that DIAF is talking about?

Baseball is all about development. That's why there are 50 rounds in the draft and why there are elaborate minor league systems in place and why teams hire scouts to seek out talent from every corner of the contry and other countires that others may miss. Anyone paying attention knows that there are only a handlful of sure things and the rest is development.

 

[Stautner]

One more thing that crossed my mind - our current No. 1 and No. 2 starters (CJ and Colby) weren't ezxactly "aces" from the outset.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Strikeout aern't really such a strong judge of who will be a quality starter. It is A factor, but not the predominant factor. I would take Greg Maddux in his prime over almost any pitcher I can think of in the last 30 years.

I'm disappointed in that response from you. You are cherry picking bringing up Greg Maddux as if he was a standard. BUT, since you did point out Greg Maddux; during his best years, he hovered right around 7 strikeouts per 9. If you throw all the *really dominating* ace pitches into a bucket over the last 10-20 years, you are basically will get one maybe two pitchers that are similar to Greg Maddux.

On the other hand current pitchers with 9 SO/9... Tim Lincicum (10.1), Felix Hernandez (8.1), CC Sabathia (7.6), Cliff Lee (7.0), Roy Halladay (6.8), Justin Verlander (8.2), Jered Weaver (7.9), Jon Lester (8.4), Ubaldo Jimenez (8.1), Roy Oswalt (7.4), David Price (7.6), Mat Latos (8.9), Cole Hamels (8.2), Clayton Kershaw (9.3), Dan Haren (7.7), CJ Wilson (8.0)...

I can keep going. It's a who's who of the best starting pitchers in baseball. Roy Halladay with the lowest at 6.8. The last four years, Halladay's SO/9 has been above 7.5. Last year it was 9.4.

Besides, it's way off base to treat this as a discussion about dominant starters - there are very few of those in baseball at all. We are just talking about bring a quality starter and capable of holding a prominant position in your pitching rotation.

By dominate starter, I'm talking someone who can win around 15 games a year. I don't specifically mean Roy Halladay, Tim Lincecum, or Felix Hernandez type pitchers.

 

[YosemiteSam]

One more thing that crossed my mind - our current No. 1 and No. 2 starters (CJ and Colby) weren't ezxactly "aces" from the outset.

Lewis was a first round draft pick. He had the arm, he just couldn't control it.

As for CJ, he also has always had a live arm.

 

[Stautner]

I'm disappointed in that response from you. You are cherry picking bringing up Greg Maddux as if he was a standard. BUT, since you did point out Greg Maddux; during his best years, he hovered right around 7 strikeouts per 9. If you throw all the *really dominating* ace pitches into a bucket over the last 10-20 years, you are basically will get one maybe two pitchers that are similar to Greg Maddux.

On the other hand current pitchers with 9 SO/9... Tim Lincicum (10.1), Felix Hernandez (8.1), CC Sabathia (7.6), Cliff Lee (7.0), Roy Halladay (6.8), Justin Verlander (8.2), Jered Weaver (7.9), Jon Lester (8.4), Ubaldo Jimenez (8.1), Roy Oswalt (7.4), David Price (7.6), Mat Latos (8.9), Cole Hamels (8.2), Clayton Kershaw (9.3), Dan Haren (7.7), CJ Wilson (8.0)...

I can keep going. It's a who's who of the best starting pitchers in baseball. Roy Halladay with the lowest at 6.8. The last four years, Halladay's SO/9 has been above 7.5. Last year it was 9.4.

Okay, a little cherry picking (although there are others), but what I'm saying is being able to pitch - being an all around pitcher - is the key. There are a lot of guys who could strike out a lot more people than Halladay and others you named, but they don't have the command and instincts and mental make up to do the job, so they don't get the chance to go out and strikeout 10+ per game. Striking out 10 doesn't help that much if you give up too many walks and wild pitches.

Look at the top 50 pitchers last year. Yes, there are notables who had over 7, and even 8-9 SO per 9 innings, but the biggest category is those who had fewer than 7, and that inicludes a lot of quality major league pitchers.

Harrison is just trying to get to the point of being a complete pitcher, and it really isn't fair to compare his stats at this stage in his development to others who have already reached certain levels. He is up to 6 SO/9 innings this year. Maybe that will pick up more with time, and maybe Harrison reaches the point of being a dependable starter. Maybe he won't. The bottom line for me is actual performance, and as long as he is does an outstanding job, the more reason for optimism, and the more opportunity he should get.

By dominate starter, I'm talking someone who can win around 15 games a year. I don't specifically mean Roy Halladay, Tim Lincecum, or Felix Hernandez type pitchers.

I don't necessarily call that dominant, but I call it a quality starter. I think its way too early to start making assessments about who can give you that kind of effort year in and year out, but as long as things are going even close to the way they have been I'm darn sure willing to give Harrison, Ogando and Holland the chance to prove what they can do.

By the way, only 24 pitchers (less than one per team) had as many as 15 wins last year. 12-13 would be great for me.

 

[Stautner]

Lewis was a first round draft pick. He had the arm, he just couldn't control it.

As for CJ, he also has always had a live arm.

Harrison throws in the low to mid 90's (generally about 92-93 mph) - not exactly a dishrag.

Lots of live arms don't become quality pitchers.

 

[DIAF]

Strikeout per nine isn't a good indicator of who will be a good starting pitcher.

For instance, a lot of 8th/9th inning fireballers boast K/9 of over 8 or 9, but would make lousy starters for any number of reasons.

1. stamina
2. lack of other quality pitches/limited pitch repertoire
3. mentality
4. funky mechanics that lead to injury the more they pitch
etc, etc.


@ Stautner - I'm discounting Matt Harrison because I think he's pitching way over his head, based upon what is known about him to this point.

Im discounting Ogando because his fastball command isn't the greatest, doesn't really have a quality 3rd pitch...his greatest asset is his fastball which can range from 96-99 mph, and if he's pitching 6 or 7 innings at a time he'll be dialing that velocity down to get further into games. I think he'd be best used as a high-leverage reliever.

I agree with you about one thing though - many live arms don't become quality pitchers. In fact, I'd go as far to say the overwhelming vast majority of live arms never become quality pitchers precisely because they have a live arm. When guys figure out they can throw 90mph in high school they don't really bother learning pitches, they just keep getting stronger and blowing fastballs by inferior competition.

 

[DIAF]

Damnnit Colby, another homer

 

[dback]

and another

 

[dback]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand another

 

[Mrdude108]

Come on Colby! What the heck is up with him, I hope its just a phase because he was very good last year and good early this season as well.

Who do you guys think (if any) will lose their job to a guy like Hunter or Webb, even though Webb is further away than Hunter.

 

[YosemiteSam]

Strikeout per nine isn't a good indicator of who will be a good starting pitcher.

For instance, a lot of 8th/9th inning fireballers boast K/9 of over 8 or 9, but would make lousy starters for any number of reasons.

1. stamina
2. lack of other quality pitches/limited pitch repertoire
3. mentality
4. funky mechanics that lead to injury the more they pitch
etc, etc.

Say what you want, (hell, argue as hard as you want you are dead wrong) most of the great starting pitchers in the league have great strikeouts per nine innings. There are hardly any *great* starting pitchers that have less than 7. Many starting pitchers that have less than 7, don't remain starters. Most that do, are back of the rotation guys.

Strikeouts are a MAJOR factor in great starting pitching.

I suppose, live arm wasn't exactly the term I was talking about. I meant a guy with great stuff. Movement, not necessarily a hard thrower, but they usually go hand and hand. Although Kenny Rogers (ex-Ranger) and Greg Maddux for that matter are different stories.

 

[DIAF]

Say what you want, (hell, argue as hard as you want you are dead wrong) most of the great starting pitchers in the league have great strikeouts per nine innings. There are hardly any *great* starting pitchers that have less than 7. Many starting pitchers that have less than 7, don't remain starters. Most that do, are back of the rotation guys.

Let's look at the top MLB career K/9 ratios (courtesy of baseball-reference.com)
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/strikeouts_per_nine_career.shtml

Rank Player (age) Strikeouts per 9 IP
1. Randy Johnson 10.6098
2. Kerry Wood 10.3445
3. Pedro Martinez 10.0398
4. Nolan Ryan+ 9.5481
5. Trevor Hoffman 9.3608
6. Sandy Koufax+ 9.2775
7. Oliver Perez 9.1160
8. Jake Peavy 8.9347
9. Sam McDowell 8.8580
10. Johan Santana 8.8507
11. Arthur Rhodes 8.8062
12. Scott Kazmir 8.7446
13. Dan Plesac 8.7397
14. Hideo Nomo 8.7344
15. Lee Smith 8.7324
16. Curt Schilling 8.5998
17. Roger Clemens 8.5521
18. Josh Beckett 8.5221
19. Eric Plunk 8.4526
20. Sid Fernandez 8.4038
21. J.R. Richard 8.3667
22. David Cone 8.2838
23. A.J. Burnett 8.2335
24. Tom Gordon 8.2315
25. Mariano Rivera 8.2194


Out of the top 25 pitchers in major league history with the highest K per 9, only 8 of them can you really say were truly great starting pitchers. There's some relief pitchers in there (If K/9 were the overriding factor in who would be a good starting pitcher, how come these guys weren't starters their entire career?) and a bunch of starters i'll bet you are surprised to see.

Many starting pitchers that have less than 7, don't remain starters. Most that do, are back of the rotation guys.

All of these guys have less than 7ks per 9 innings for their careers.
Cliff Lee, sitting at #100. Roy Halladay, #120. Kevin Brown, #138. Bob Feller, #214. Greg Maddux, #217. Gaylord Perry, #251. "Back of the rotation guys", indeed.

Strikeouts are just one way to get an out.