PDA

View Full Version : Question from an outsider



mckbearcat48
08-16-2010, 02:14 PM
Those who know the Reds:

What's the ceiling on Travis Wood? Is he a #1 type starter in the future? He looks like he's been pretty darn good starting off.

GIDP
08-16-2010, 02:23 PM
Probably a 2 or 3. I dont think he will ever be a dominating guy, but he certainly has enough stuff to have a very good major league career.

Mid to low 3 ERA some years but probably never have one below 3 or above 4.

Good contol, decent K rates, lots of fly balls, which likely leads to a higher than normal amount of homers given up.

HARP3R
08-16-2010, 02:42 PM
Just an opinion of an outsider who has seen Wood throw a few times. He's a small guy who can't really throw on a downward plain, so he'll really have to work hard to keep that velo consistently around 91 while locating his fastball. He'll need to really continue to develop that curve and throw that nasty change-up consistently for strikes. If he can develop a good sinker, it'd really be in his best interest playing in hitter-friendly Great American Ballpark.

To me, I don't really see a 2 or 3 but more likely a back-end of the rotation type pitcher. But who knows? I'm very far from an expert.

swaisuc
08-16-2010, 02:58 PM
Harper- I think that is a fair assessment. I don't think he has huge upside to sustain #1 or #2 numbers, but I do think his delivery and mental makeup make it possible that he will stick in the majors for a long career. I'm thinking something like Ted Lilly.

takealeake
08-16-2010, 03:06 PM
It depends on what you're relating this to. I think he can be a #1-#3 starter depending on what team he's on. I never get the point of saying "oh is this guy a #1 type of starter" or not, because quite frankly if you went through the entire league and counted up all the players people make these arbitrary assessments of who's a #1 or not, there would be less pitchers people declare as #1's as there are TEAMS.

So that shows the assessment is pretty inaccurate, because fans/experts can't really gauge WHAT a #1 guy actually is, since there needs to be as many #1 starters as teams (30). Based on that understanding, as said earlier if he has a low 3 ERA, that's enough to be a #1 starter easily in this league I'm betting, if you take the top 30 starters in the league to correspond with how many teams are out there.

Reds
08-16-2010, 03:15 PM
If I had to venture a guess he'll get to the point where he's part of the playoff rotation but not the first guy out. Probably a 3?

GIDP
08-16-2010, 03:17 PM
His ERA is going to be linked to his HR/FB ratio.

as long as that BB rate stays around 2 and that K rate stays around 7 hes going to be pretty darn good.

couch_manager
08-16-2010, 03:38 PM
Travis Wood is not a true #1 starter in that he isn't over 6 ft tall and doesn't throw 95+. He does have a sneaky fastball though and good control with all of his pitches. He primarily pitches in the 89-91 range with his fastball but will get it up to 93 when he wants to. He will have a pretty good K rate and is pretty difficult to hit--.233 against him in Louisville, .175 in Cincinnati. He is primarily a flyball pitcher and will give up a few homeruns in GABP. He seems like a bulldog competitor on the mound and if we had a true #1 starter, I'd put him as a fringe #2 but definitely a #3.

Orodle
08-16-2010, 04:11 PM
Cliff Lee doesnt have the makeup of a #1 starter either. Neither did Greg Maddux or Tom Glavine.

davereds24
08-16-2010, 04:15 PM
He's exceeded expectations the last 5 years, there's no evidence to show he can't be a #1.

Griffey012
08-16-2010, 04:40 PM
I would say his ceiling would be a Cliff Lee type starter, but it would be more likely he would follow a Mark Buehrle or Ted Lilly type career path. Either way, he appears to be very good.

Pony Boy
08-16-2010, 04:43 PM
Just an opinion of an outsider who has seen Wood throw a few times. He's a small guy who can't really throw on a downward plain, so he'll really have to work hard to keep that velo consistently around 91 while locating his fastball. He'll need to really continue to develop that curve and throw that nasty change-up consistently for strikes. If he can develop a good sinker, it'd really be in his best interest playing in hitter-friendly Great American Ballpark.

To me, I don't really see a 2 or 3 but more likely a back-end of the rotation type pitcher. But who knows? I'm very far from an expert.

I am so sick of people writing off shorter pitchers for no other reason than they are short. There are tons of 6' and below pitchers both past and present that are 6' and shorter. There are so many examples that it is silly to even name them.

Griffey012
08-16-2010, 04:43 PM
It depends on what you're relating this to. I think he can be a #1-#3 starter depending on what team he's on. I never get the point of saying "oh is this guy a #1 type of starter" or not, because quite frankly if you went through the entire league and counted up all the players people make these arbitrary assessments of who's a #1 or not, there would be less pitchers people declare as #1's as there are TEAMS.

So that shows the assessment is pretty inaccurate, because fans/experts can't really gauge WHAT a #1 guy actually is, since there needs to be as many #1 starters as teams (30). Based on that understanding, as said earlier if he has a low 3 ERA, that's enough to be a #1 starter easily in this league I'm betting, if you take the top 30 starters in the league to correspond with how many teams are out there.

When people use the terminology relating to someone projecting as a #1 starter, it means he projects as a top of the rotation pitcher with dominant stuff. Basically the guy has a very good shot at being a potential Cy Young winner. Simply because a pitcher is placed as a team's #1 start or opening day starter does not mean he is an "Ace" or a Top of the Rotation pitcher. Aaron Harang is not an "ace", Zach Duke is not an "ace", nor are many other team's #1 starters.

UPRedsFan
08-16-2010, 04:49 PM
Estimates of his ceiling here are low in my opinion. His ceiling is certainly not to be the 4th best pitcher on any team.

I see his ceiling is Tom Glavine territory or maybe Browning at his peak. He likely wouldn't start game 1 of the world series, but game 2 or 3. Right now, in my estimation he'd be in our top 3 to start the playoffs.

Krawhitham
08-16-2010, 05:26 PM
Probably a 2 or 3. I dont think he will ever be a dominating guy, but he certainly has enough stuff to have a very good major league career.

Mid to low 3 ERA some years but probably never have one below 3 or above 4.

Good contol, decent K rates, lots of fly balls, which likely leads to a higher than normal amount of homers given up.

4 HR in 50 innings or 1 HR per 12.5 innings with the big team
9 HR in 100 Innings or 1 HR per 11.11 innings in AAA this season


The rest of the Reds starters this season
1 HR per 11.75 innings for Cueto
1 HR per 8.88 innings for Arroyo
1 HR per 8.00 innings for Homer
1 HR per 7.94 innings for Leake
1 HR per 6.67 innings for Harang
1 HR per 6.00 innings for Volquez

GIDP
08-16-2010, 05:31 PM
4 HR in 50 innings or 1 HR per 12.5 innings with the big team
9 HR in 100 Innings or 1 HR per 11.11 innings in AAA this season


The rest of the Reds starters this season
1 HR per 11.75 innings for Cueto
1 HR per 8.88 innings for Arroyo
1 HR per 8.00 innings for Homer
1 HR per 7.94 innings for Leake
1 HR per 6.67 innings for Harang
1 HR per 6.00 innings for Volquez

Thats not exactly what I meant. He might give up less per 9 innings but he will give up more per batter faced. His control likely wont make it be a big issue.

New York Red
08-16-2010, 05:33 PM
Cliff Lee doesnt have the makeup of a #1 starter either. Neither did Greg Maddux or Tom Glavine.
Exactly what I was thinking. A lot of the great pitchers in the history of the game didn't have "great stuff". They pitched from the neck up. If Travis Wood turns into a lifetime #3 type pitcher in the Reds rotation, as a lot of fans seem to be suggesting, then the Reds are going to have some very strong pitching staffs in the years to come.

HARP3R
08-16-2010, 06:15 PM
I am so sick of people writing off shorter pitchers for no other reason than they are short. There are tons of 6' and below pitchers both past and present that are 6' and shorter. There are so many examples that it is silly to even name them.

I think you misenterpreted my post.

I'm definitely not writing Wood off because he's short. A pitcher's height is not an issue in my eyes, but when you're a pitcher like Wood, it can matter. People have mentioned pitchers like Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine who weren't flamethrowers like Wood. Well, there are many reasons those guys were great, but the ability to change speeds, nibble around the corners of the strike zone with ALL of their pitches, and having some dirty pitches in their repritoire is why those guys were such great pitchers.

I thought I was being pretty objective in my observation with Wood. IF he can continue to develop his pitches (which are already pretty good pitches) and consistently throw strikes with all of those pitches, there's no reason to believe he won't be a good major league pitcher. I just don't see a staff ace or #2 pitcher in the making. Sorry.

In no way did I write him off because he's only 5'11.