Re: Drew Stubbs
About the only thing that Lincecum and Cueto have in common concerning their projectability is that I was bigger then both by the time I was 13.
Now it's absolutely true that conservative scouting directors have a bias concerning pitcher body types-pitchers who fit the "tall but not too tall mode" generally have a better downward plane, mechanics, and durability. Pitchers who are too short or too tall to fit the mold basically are only able to buck the trend because of their exceptional stuff.
Lincecum has electric stuff-it's dynamite stuff really. While I like Cueto and his stuff will likely make him a good major leaguer (albeit not a starter), his stuff is not even in the same category as Lincecum.
Now to the draft, Lincecum was clearly the highest reward player in the draft given his stuff was a class above everyone elses and his college history suggested a very short trip through the majors. Why did he fall to #10? There was risk associated with him as there were questions about his command, mechanics (a short guy with a weird delivery), and his college pitch counts.
That said, when the highest reward player in the draft falls into your lap, you take him. When he also fits one of your greatest organisational needs, you take him twice just to make sure. I understand teams taking Hochevar, Miller, or Morrow ahead of Lincecum. But, to me, taking a position player with serious questions concerning his potential to develop offensively does nothing to mitigate risk relative to taking a short pitcher with funked mechanics and an explosive ceiling. The hindsight card really doesn't work with that decision.
"This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
Last edited by jojo; 07-22-2007 at 12:18 PM.