Travis Wood

[indy_dave00]

Recently I had a chance to talk with Pacer broadcaster Mark Boyle ( he did Billings games this summer on radio). I asked him about Travis Wood , he was very impressed by both Wood's stuff and his demeaner. Said Travis appears very mature on the mound for a kid so young , and his stuff was impressive and not just his fastball.

[Topcat]

Originally Posted by indy_dave00

Recently I had a chance to talk with Pacer broadcaster Mark Boyle ( he did Billings games this summer on radio). I asked him about Travis Wood , he was very impressed by both Wood's stuff and his demeaner. Said Travis appears very mature on the mound for a kid so young , and his stuff was impressive and not just his fastball.

Good to know, as a Reds fan I pray for no injurys and a cautious progression with Travis

[11BarryLarkin11]

Originally Posted by Topcat

Good to know, as a Reds fan I pray for no injurys a a cautious progression with Travis

Let's hope so. I wonder about his secondary pitches. I know he has a nice fastball/changeup combo, but he'll need a good breaking ball at the more advanced levels. It'll be interesting to see how he handles the next level. Clearly, he was more advanced than all the rookie league prospects, but how will that translate against better competition?

[Hondo]

Anyone have his career stats on hand??

[11BarryLarkin11]

Originally Posted by Hondo

Anyone have his career stats on hand??

Here they are:

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/playe...vis-wood.shtml

Pretty filthy, to be sure.

[cincyinco]

Originally Posted by 11BarryLarkin11

Let's hope so. I wonder about his secondary pitches. I know he has a nice fastball/changeup combo, but he'll need a good breaking ball at the more advanced levels. It'll be interesting to see how he handles the next level. Clearly, he was more advanced than all the rookie league prospects, but how will that translate against better competition?

I asked BA about Travis Wood in one of their top 10 prospect chats and here is what they had to say:

Q: Nate from Denver asks:
Travis Wood seems to be a lot better than most, including Baseball America, thought he would be coming out of the draft. If he can develope that 3rd pitch, what do you see as his ceiling? Does he have front line stuff?

A: J.J. Cooper: Reports going into the draft that we had said he has was a fastball pitcher with a decent changeup. The change is a lot better than that, which gives him a higher ceiling. Lefties with fastballs and changeups can go a long ways, he's a long way off, but he has the chance to be a solid No. 2 if he develops over the next 3-4 years.

I think I also remember reading that his curveball was also better than advertised. On the surface, it appears Obie and company did a fine job drafting this arm. I think he can learn at least an average curve and offer 3 quality MLB pitches, 2 of them being plus. If he can do that, he'll find success.

[11BarryLarkin11]

Originally Posted by cincyinco

I asked BA about Travis Wood in one of their top 10 prospect chats and here is what they had to say:

Q: Nate from Denver asks:
Travis Wood seems to be a lot better than most, including Baseball America, thought he would be coming out of the draft. If he can develope that 3rd pitch, what do you see as his ceiling? Does he have front line stuff?

A: J.J. Cooper: Reports going into the draft that we had said he has was a fastball pitcher with a decent changeup. The change is a lot better than that, which gives him a higher ceiling. Lefties with fastballs and changeups can go a long ways, he's a long way off, but he has the chance to be a solid No. 2 if he develops over the next 3-4 years.

I think I also remember reading that his curveball was also better than advertised. On the surface, it appears Obie and company did a fine job drafting this arm. I think he can learn at least an average curve and offer 3 quality MLB pitches, 2 of them being plus. If he can do that, he'll find success.

Good info, thanks.

But, the real question is whether or not Wood will reach the bigs with his arm still attached to his torso. Unfortunately, recent history would point to it being unlikely.

Why don't the Reds look into a prehab program? Develop a system to improve mechanics?

Or, is the tandem starter system supposed to be the end all be all for protecting pitchers' arms?

[Scrap Irony]

Will he start in Dayton?

With the Reds' penchant for pushing promising arms, I wouldn't be suprised.

Is that the right move?

[cincyinco]

Originally Posted by 11BarryLarkin11

Good info, thanks.

But, the real question is whether or not Wood will reach the bigs with his arm still attached to his torso. Unfortunately, recent history would point to it being unlikely.

Why don't the Reds look into a prehab program? Develop a system to improve mechanics?

Or, is the tandem starter system supposed to be the end all be all for protecting pitchers' arms?

From what I recall there were some questions regarding his mechanics. But I also seem to recall Wood having better than advertised mechanics as well. His arm may fall off, thats always a risk with pitchers. But until it happens I'm not going to worry about it.

The tandum system is in place to get these guys arms in shape quick and to handle the rigors of pro ball. I dont know if I like it or not, but I can understand the theory behind it. I think whether it really works or not remains to be seen. Hard to determine much of anything after only a couple of years. Baseball is a game of patience, its timeless... I think people often forget that. And more patience needs to be excerised to give a proper evaluation as to what fruits may come of the tandum starter labor..

[Heath]

Originally Posted by cincyinco

The tandum system is in place to get these guys arms in shape quick and to handle the rigors of pro ball. I dont know if I like it or not, but I can understand the theory behind it. I think whether it really works or not remains to be seen. Hard to determine much of anything after only a couple of years. Baseball is a game of patience, its timeless... I think people often forget that. And more patience needs to be excerised to give a proper evaluation as to what fruits may come of the tandum starter labor..

The cons of the tandem starting - so what I have heard in Dayton -

One - there is no rhythm to the starts. A guy could go 4-5 innings and pitch well, but get yanked. Or, in some cases, guy gets hammered out of the box, and instead of trying to win a game, the guy pitches his 75 pitches.

Two - the purpose of baseball, from the pitcher side - is to not let the other team hit the ball safely, which a mulitude of safe hits will generate runs. What the FO wants, is the pitchers to MAKE THE BATTER HIT THE BALL. The pro (supposively) is it might teach some control. The con is if the pitcher lets them hit the ball by pitching "fat" and it doesn't allow them to "battle" batters. Plus, usually, lots of hits means lots of runs. Night after night in Dayton, pitchers were constantly battling techniques AND control, leading me to believe that the pitchers were OVERTHINKING about situations and trying to PLACE pitches.

Three - I've read a few articles and listened to ex-pitchers talk about baseball. The tandem pitching is techinically (according to the FO) two starters. But, according to former pitchers, there is a different mentality to start and to relieve. In this case, the so-called second starter, is actually a reliever. The mindset changes. The next time out, that second starter might be the first starter. Now, the mindset and routine is different.

There are plenty of other programs out there that monitor what a pitcher can do to improve control while actually trying to get guys out.

IMO, the tandem pitching needs to be shelved along with pitching to contact, taking first pitches, and buying the 10-pack of binders.

[11BarryLarkin11]

Originally Posted by Heath

The cons of the tandem starting - so what I have heard in Dayton -

One - there is no rhythm to the starts. A guy could go 4-5 innings and pitch well, but get yanked. Or, in some cases, guy gets hammered out of the box, and instead of trying to win a game, the guy pitches his 75 pitches.

Two - the purpose of baseball, from the pitcher side - is to not let the other team hit the ball safely, which a mulitude of safe hits will generate runs. What the FO wants, is the pitchers to MAKE THE BATTER HIT THE BALL. The pro (supposively) is it might teach some control. The con is if the pitcher lets them hit the ball by pitching "fat" and it doesn't allow them to "battle" pitchers. Plus, usually, lots of hits means lots of runs. Night after night in Dayton, pitchers were constantly battling techniques AND control, leading me to believe that the pitchers were OVERTHINKING about situations and trying to PLACE pitches.

Three - I've read a few articles and listened to ex-pitchers talk about baseball. The tandem pitching is techinically (according to the FO) two starters. But, according to former pitchers, there is a different mentality to start and to relieve. In this case, the so-called second starter, is actually a reliever. The mindset changes. The next time out, that second starter might be the first starter. Now, the mindset and routine is different.

There are plenty of other programs out there that monitor what a pitcher can do to improve control while actually trying to get guys out.

IMO, the tandem pitching needs to be shelved along with pitching to contact, taking first pitches, and buying the 10-pack of binders.

Good thoughts.

Personally, I'm not sold on it either. I do, however, like the fact that the pitcher HAS to be efficient with his pitches in order to make it through five innings to get the win. However, that doesn't make me an advocate of pitching to contact, which is an extremely flawed philosophy. But, it is important to be able to work effecitively within the strikezone.

I tend to agree with the differing mentallity of the starters and relievers. There is different preparation involved in the different roles. I'd prefer that they be locked into one or the other.

Tandem starters is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure if it's a good one.

What other organizations are utilizing it?

[Heath]

Originally Posted by 11BarryLarkin11

Tandem starters is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure if it's a good one.

What other organizations are utilizing it?

I'm not up-to-date on minor league organizations, Doc Scott probably would be the one to ask.

But, IIRC, when DanO left Texas - they tossed his concepts out the window.

No one else is doing those concepts that I am aware of.

[rdiersin]

Originally Posted by Heath

I'm not up-to-date on minor league organizations, Doc Scott probably would be the one to ask.

But, IIRC, when DanO left Texas - they tossed his concepts out the window.

No one else is doing those concepts that I am aware of.

They weren't DanO's ideas. They were imposed by Grady Fuson, who left at the same time or shortly thereafter. O'Brien just borrowed the system when he left.

[Doc. Scott]

You know, I'm not sure who else uses the tandem-starter system. Texas doesn't any more. But I'm sure there are a couple of other organizations that do.

As I said, I'm bordering on being against it at this point. It may be helping preserve arms, but it's ruining results.

The Tandem starter system came over from
the Braves organization w/Rhule or Dean Taylor
I think....? Which ever one was in the Braves
organization.

The drafting of "TALENT" has improved
under O'Brien. IMO That doesn't mean
I think the signing or trading for major
league talent has been very good.