Re: Buster Olney says scouts are raving about Mike Leake
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
How often in the history of pitching has a pitcher gained command and movement by throwing harder? It's counterintuitive to argue that a major league starting pitcher is likely to undergo that transformation successfully. That was the point. No one is arguing that they don't want it to happen. It's just that wanting it to happen doesn't make it likely to....this is a belly that one should need to poke twice before accepting as reality.
I think it's very possible that leAke has not been throwing his hardest in order to improve his command. With more experience and practise I think it's very possible that he can throw closer to his maximum without materially decreasing his command, and although he might lose some movement, the fact his fastball and quite possibly secondary pitches will be thrown harder it might before difficult to tee up on.
Mike leake is not a robot. He's a 25 year old pitcher that has been earning at the highest level. He might be reaching the comfort level in the MLB that experimentation could allow him to Improve.
He certainly wouldn't be the first 25 year old pitcher that doesn't throw more than 95 to show improvement. Also it's not like his command is elite elite. He came up advertised as a command gut and has shown well. But he's not out of this world like a sheets, shields, Halliday, etc. a guy with his reputation might be able to take the leap from having good command to elite command. He obviously doesn't have the stuff to be a Halliday, but he doesn't have to be to show real improvement.
Re: Buster Olney says scouts are raving about Mike Leake
My only complaint with Leake as our 5th starter is that he is a shoplifter
Re: Buster Olney says scouts are raving about Mike Leake
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scrap Irony
Can't do it. Don't have that information handy. Nor do you have the opposite information.
That's a "handy" assertion but you argued it's not rare at all. If you can't give examples, how can you make that argument?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scrap Irony
We're both conjecturing here.
(But my side makes logical sense.)
My side is consistent with normal pitcher development. Your side is swimming against the current.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scrap Irony
Again, because you seem to be making up an argument that you can win instead of reading mine:
Shenanigans. I've let you define the argument-Leake is throwing harder while inducing more movement and this is expected to improve his command and ultimately increase his true talent level. Thats a fair summation of your argument and it's why I suggest it's swimming against the current.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Scrap Irony
Sure, it has. He often throws too good of a pitch as a strike. His problems (two-fold) are throwing it in the middle of the zone with not enough gas behind it.
I agree he doesn't have an out pitch.
Re: Buster Olney says scouts are raving about Mike Leake
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Plus Plus
The point wasn't that Leake is Pettite at all.
The point is that you can win without 5 extremely dominant starters, and you can win a lot. Pettite wasn't great in 1998 and the Yankees won 114 games and swept the World Series. Wells anchored that rotation, and really caught fire in the playoffs; Pettite pitched WS game 4 after pitching poorly in the season and postseason.
Again, Pettitte pitched well above average during the season. He was significantly above average (10 runs better over his innings than average).
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Plus Plus
I think that being upset that Leake isn't elite when he is perfectly serviceable and probably even better than that as a BOR starter is a lot of misdirected energy. Its extremely difficult to find upgrades to guys like Leake when there aren't people who are definite upgrades who can be had at his price and provide his skillset to the team. Chapman may have been an upgrade, but 1) we won't find out this year because management put him in the pen making this now a non-issue, and 2) objectively, taking Chapman from the pen to the rotation and putting Leake into the pen likely weakens both areas in the short term; the bullpen would be certainly weaker, so starter-Chapman would have had to be significantly better than starter-Leake to offset that.
I'm not one of the guys fixated on Leake becoming something different than he is...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Plus Plus
My stance is that Leake is likely in the top half of starting pitchers in baseball, if you include all pitchers who are going to start games this year and also pitchers who "aren't retired by choice," if you will. Again, his numbers across 2010, 2011, and the last 24 starts of 2012 support that he is a guy with an ERA of about 4, WHIP of about 1.3, and K/BB of about 3. Even last year, including his poor first 6 starts of the season, Leake's ERA+ was 93. Why isn't this OK for a 5th starter in a rotation?
If baseball was outlawed today, an accurate history book wuld have to classify Leake as a below average starter based upon his production realtive to the average NL starter during Leake's career.
I'm fine with him being the 5th starter and have never argued otherwise so your last question needs to be directed at those arguing he doesn't deserve to pitch or those arguing he's going to become something much different than he's been (want to argue with those who hate Leake but also seem not content with who Leake has been).
Re: Buster Olney says scouts are raving about Mike Leake
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
Again, Pettitte pitched well above average during the season. He was significantly above average (10 runs better over his innings than average).
His ERA+ was 104. That's average-ish, and isn't out of the realm of possibility for Leake; Leake had a 102 ERA+ in 2011. It doesn't affect my central point at all that it isn't a requirement to have five high-end starting pitchers to field a competitive or even elite baseball team. Pettitte was certainly not elite in 1998, regardless of his career numbers or the era's numbers or anything. I don't see anything holding Leake back from putting together a season right at NL average, given his history and projections going forward.
Quote:
I'm not one of the guys fixated on Leake becoming something different than he is...
I was replying to your comment, which was in reply to mine. I was extending my argument that Leake is a fine fifth starter to those who maintain that he is not. I think that is pretty clear given my post and the post you quoted of mine initially, in your post discussing baselines being important for context.
Quote:
If baseball was outlawed today, an accurate history book wuld have to classify Leake as a below average starter based upon his production realtive to the average NL starter during Leake's career.
I'm fine with him being the 5th starter and have never argued otherwise so your last question needs to be directed at those arguing he doesn't deserve to pitch or those arguing he's going to become something much different than he's been (want to argue with those who hate Leake but also seem not content with who Leake has been).
The context of my initial posting was pretty clear. I'm not sure why you are taking my previous post so personally.
As an aside, I think it's a little strange to abrasively quote someone's post with a reply full of elipses and obvious points to debate a microscopic, off-topic point and then getting upset when your post is replied to in turn.
Re: Buster Olney says scouts are raving about Mike Leake
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Patrick Bateman
I think it's very possible that leAke has not been throwing his hardest in order to improve his command. With more experience and practise I think it's very possible that he can throw closer to his maximum without materially decreasing his command, and although he might lose some movement, the fact his fastball and quite possibly secondary pitches will be thrown harder it might before difficult to tee up on.
Mike leake is not a robot. He's a 25 year old pitcher that has been earning at the highest level. He might be reaching the comfort level in the MLB that experimentation could allow him to Improve.
He certainly wouldn't be the first 25 year old pitcher that doesn't throw more than 95 to show improvement. Also it's not like his command is elite elite. He came up advertised as a command gut and has shown well. But he's not out of this world like a sheets, shields, Halliday, etc. a guy with his reputation might be able to take the leap from having good command to elite command. He obviously doesn't have the stuff to be a Halliday, but he doesn't have to be to show real improvement.
A BB/9 of 2 is pretty darned elite. While it's true he is no Doug Fister, Leake has been ranked in the top ten of qualified mlb starters since 2011 based upon BB/9.
Re: Buster Olney says scouts are raving about Mike Leake
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Plus Plus
His ERA+ was 104. That's average-ish, and isn't out of the realm of possibility for Leake; Leake had a 102 ERA+ in 2011. It doesn't affect my central point at all that it isn't a requirement to have five high-end starting pitchers to field a competitive or even elite baseball team. Pettitte was certainly not elite in 1998, regardless of his career numbers or the era's numbers or anything. I don't see anything holding Leake back from putting together a season right at NL average, given his history and projections going forward.
Except Pettitte ala 1998 was well above average in the Al environment as again evidenced by the comparison below:
Code:
1998 ERA FIP K/9 BB/9
AL ave 4.75 4.64 6.16 3.27
Yanks 3.85 4.11 6.96 2.81
Andy P 4.24 4.28 6.07 3.62
Leake has been below average in the NL environment as a Red.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Plus Plus
I was replying to your comment, which was in reply to mine. I was extending my argument that Leake is a fine fifth starter to those who maintain that he is not. I think that is pretty clear given my post and the post you quoted of mine initially, in your post discussing baselines being important for context.
The context of my initial posting was pretty clear. I'm not sure why you are taking my previous post so personally.
And I was merely replying to your comment and for clarity's sake simply pointed out that your points about Leake were not representative of my position on Leake. I haven't taken anything personally and am confused why you seem to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Plus Plus
As an aside, I think it's a little strange to abrasively quote someone's post with a reply full of elipses and obvious points to debate a microscopic, off-topic point and then getting upset when your post is replied to in turn.
There wasn't a single ellipse in any of my posts and nothing you stated was abrasively quoted and should be interpretted in that fashion.
Its just your analogy wasn't valid because the parallel being drawn ignored important context. A more compelling argument would've focused upon the Yanks having the best rotation in the AL despite Irabu (a better parallel for present day Leake given the contexts).
Re: Buster Olney says scouts are raving about Mike Leake
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
Except Pettitte ala 1998 was well above average in the Al environment as again evidenced by the comparison below:
Code:
1998 ERA FIP K/9 BB/9
AL ave 4.75 4.64 6.16 3.27
Yanks 3.85 4.11 6.96 2.81
Andy P 4.24 4.28 6.07 3.62
Leake has been below average in the NL environment as a Red.
And I was merely replying to your comment and for clarity's sake simply pointed out that your points about Leake were not representative of my position on Leake. I haven't taken anything personally and am confused why you seem to be.
There wasn't a single ellipse in any of my posts and nothing you stated was abrasively quoted and should be interpretted in that fashion.
Its just your analogy wasn't valid because the parallel being drawn ignored important context. A more compelling argument would've focused upon the Yanks having the best rotation in the AL despite Irabu (a better parallel for present day Leake given the contexts).
1) It's very interesting to me that there would be such a marked discrepancy between AL pitchers and Pettitte and yet he would have an ERA+ of only 104. Was old Yankee stadium a strong pitcher's environment? I haven't seen anything that would imply that.
2) Irabu had better numbers across the board than Pettitte in 1998. Maybe I should change the example: how does Joba Chamberlain in 2009 work? 31 starts, 157.1 innings, 4.75 ERA, 1.544 WHIP, 1.75 K/BB. In 2009, the Yankees won 103 games, the most in MLB. They won the World Series. And they did it with Joba Chamberlain starting every 5 days with those numbers.
Better? :beerme:
No hard feelings- hopefully my example here helps clear up how I feel since I was mistaken on Pettitte. It's tough knowing the point that you want to make and not having it come across at all...
Re: Buster Olney says scouts are raving about Mike Leake
I would contend that just because pitchers have been subpar (for lack of a better term - not the point) on teams that have won a lot of games, you can not use that to mean it is ok for a "bad" pitcher to have a spot on the staff.
Again, I am ok with Leake, but pointing to past seasons like Chamberlin isn't a convincing way to build a case if you ask me. It is too easily rebutted. We are looking for future performance, not past history.
Re: Buster Olney says scouts are raving about Mike Leake
Quote:
Originally Posted by
kaldaniels
I would contend that just because pitchers have been subpar (for lack of a better term - not the point) on teams that have won a lot of games, you can not use that to mean it is ok for a "bad" pitcher to have a spot on the staff.
Again, I am ok with Leake, but pointing to past seasons like Chamberlin isn't a convincing way to build a case if you ask me. It is too easily rebutted. We are looking for future performance, not past history.
It's a dose of historical perspective for those who think that starting Leake is a major oversite by the Reds in 2013. The fact of the matter is that teams have won boatloads of games with fifth starters who are significantly worse than Leake. To be a contender isn't to have five elite starters. Not even historically good teams had five elite starters. That's the simple fact that I am trying to communicate.
To be on topic, though, I still look at the last 24 games of last season in tandem with 2011 to come to the conclusion that Leake is not a poor option but rather a very good option to be in the starting rotation and, as I said before, very well makes the team better by being in the rotation than the team would be if Leake and Chapman switched spots in the locker room and Chapman was the #5 starter and Leake was in the bullpen (at least in the short term).
Re: Buster Olney says scouts are raving about Mike Leake
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Caveat Emperor
Amusingly enough, Mike Leake's fastball (career average FB of 89.1MPH) is actually closer to Kirk Saarloos (85.6 MPH) than it is to Johnny Cueto (93 MPH).
That doesn't make a 90 MPH fastball a soft tosser.
Re: Buster Olney says scouts are raving about Mike Leake
There have been 132 qualifying pitchers the last 3 seasons in Major League Baseball. Leake is No. 83 in ERA in that span. And that doesn't include all the guys that weren't good enough to stick. That's an average of about 2.7 per team. So at worst, Leake has pitched like a middle-of-the-rotation guy.
There is truly a lot of hyperbole about Leake's (in)effectiveness going on in this thread.
Re: Buster Olney says scouts are raving about Mike Leake
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brutus
There have been 132 qualifying pitchers the last 3 seasons in Major League Baseball. Leake is No. 83 in ERA in that span. And that doesn't include all the guys that weren't good enough to stick. That's an average of about 2.7 per team. So at worst, Leake has pitched like a middle-of-the-rotation guy.
There is truly a lot of hyperbole about Leake's (in)effectiveness going on in this thread.
ERA?
When looking at all pitchers without the defense behind them hopelessly clouding the issue (i.e. looking at FIP-the things a pitcher can actually control), 78% of qualified starters since 2010 are ranked in front of Leake.
Re: Buster Olney says scouts are raving about Mike Leake
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
ERA?
When looking at all pitchers without the defense behind them hopelessly clouding the issue (i.e. looking at FIP-the things a pitcher can actually control), 78% of qualified starters since 2010 are ranked in front of Leake.
Wouldn't that make him, by definition, a MOR starter or at least one that is better than a typical fifth starter?
And, since he's young and still learning his craft, wouldn't that make him a good bet to be even better as he continues to learn the art of pitching?
Re: Buster Olney says scouts are raving about Mike Leake
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Plus Plus
1) It's very interesting to me that there would be such a marked discrepancy between AL pitchers and Pettitte and yet he would have an ERA+ of only 104. Was old Yankee stadium a strong pitcher's environment? I haven't seen anything that would imply that.
Relief pitchers bring down the ML ERA and the NL as a whole also bings down the ML. ERA+ does not normalize for starters in their own league-it normalizes for a cohort that really isn't meaningful.
It may seem like I'm being persnicky about baselines but they are really, important for conclusions that are drawn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Plus Plus
2) Irabu had better numbers across the board than Pettitte in 1998.
Actually that's not accurate. The only thing Irabu had was a very lucky BABIP that drove his LOB% much higher than average which artificially lowered his ERA-a great example of why ERA doesn't help in these kinds of discussions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Plus Plus
Maybe I should change the example: how does Joba Chamberlain in 2009 work? 31 starts, 157.1 innings, 4.75 ERA, 1.544 WHIP, 1.75 K/BB. In 2009, the Yankees won 103 games, the most in MLB. They won the World Series. And they did it with Joba Chamberlain starting every 5 days with those numbers.
Better? :beerme:
No hard feelings- hopefully my example here helps clear up how I feel since I was mistaken on Pettitte. It's tough knowing the point that you want to make and not having it come across at all...
Chamberlain is a much better comp for the point you were making IMHO. Its not a big deal.