Mike Leake

[membengal]

I didn't bump this for a who-was-right-and-who-was-wrong festival.

I bumped it as a reminder that we are mostly talking blind based on scouting reports that themselves may not be as informed as we think they are. And that hard and fast opinions or declarations about a draftees ceiling or floor based on same are on rather shaky ground.

[BLEEDS]

I agree. HOWEVER, I think there are varying degrees of Kevin Bacon here.

I don't think we needed to question much of the "scouting report" on Mike Leake. He has a pretty prolific college career, etc... pretty much what you saw was what you got, and a lot of folks agreed that he was pretty much at/near his ceiling.

Compared to a guy like - oh I don't know - Zach Stewart, who had an up-and-down college career, bullpen/starter, same in the minors, starts out as a reliever, then starts 14 games in 2009 in his second year of pro ball. There is A LOT of scouting and speculating to be done. Some say he's fluff, others say he's a sure-fire Cy Young winner in the making.
Yeah, you're "blind" on a guy like that.

Just sayin'

PEACE

-BLEEDS

[defender]

a 24 page thread about Leake in the minor leauge forum. sort of funny

[nate]

Originally Posted by defender

a 24 page thread about Leake in the minor leauge forum. sort of funny

The first 23 pages were posted last year.

[Kingspoint]

Originally Posted by OnBaseMachine

Hershiser scouting report: Mike Leake

Friday, June 26, 2009 | Print Entry

Posted by Orel Hershiser

Even though Mike Leake had a terrible performance in the game I saw Tuesday, I could tell that the Arizona State pitcher has a lot of good tools.

One of the reasons for his bad outing against Texas (3.1 IP, 8 H, 6 R, 1 HR, 2 BB) could be the extended delay between starts. It had been almost a week and a half since his last start, and he also had about a 30-minute wait in the dugout before he came in and surrendered six runs to the Longhorns in the top of the fourth inning because the Sun Devils had a long bottom of the third.

What may have hurt him further was that even though he hadn't allowed any runs in the first three innings, Leake didn't seem to have his rhythm early on. All three of those factors could have added up to a bad outing.

I've written before about the difference between control and command. Leake had control but did not have command in his latest start. He was falling behind hitters 2-0 and 3-1 by trying to make quality pitches that he wasn't quite able to execute.

Leake has enough ability and hand-eye coordination to come back in those counts and throw a fastball for a strike. But those fastballs were elevated and flat, and that led to trouble. His mind's eye was trying to execute the kind of pitches that he had all year but couldn't that day because of the reasons I listed.

Looking at his tools against Texas, I didn't see any fastballs at 94 mph, which was listed as the top of his range on his scouting report. He pitched the first two innings at about 88-90 mph and did touch 92 mph a few times. I suspect that when coaches put together his scouting reports, they may be a little more liberal with the top-end range.

Leake may have touched 94 mph on six to 10 pitches during the season and that might become the top end of his range all of a sudden. I've heard that he throws his two-seamer at about 86-87 mph, so that'd be the low end of his fastball. From what I saw, he was pretty much around 88-91 mph throughout the game.

To me, his arm looked a little tired, but it could have been some cobwebs from all that rest. It might not have been quite as stretched out and elastic as he'd like.

Leake has pitched so well that he led the nation and the Pac-10 in innings pitched this year (132.2); he also led the Pac-10 last year (121.1). But the first adjustment I'd suggest for him, based on his latest outing, would be to change the angle on his fastball. He's almost throwing sidearm, and I kept thinking there is no way that he pitched with this lack of movement all year.

I spoke to my son, who goes to Pac-10 rival USC, about Leake, and he told me Leake has tremendous sink on his ball. I didn't get to see it Tuesday. In fact, his ball was really level. Despite not getting to see the sink myself, I can't imagine that Leake would be drafted eighth overall if the bottom didn't drop out of his pitches. So I think his lack of sink on Tuesday could have been due to the fact that he was a little low with his arm, which needs to go up at least six inches.

Leake has a tremendous hand for pitching. That means he can spin the ball at release and put tremendous touch and finish on the ball to get that late movement on his pitches that is so effective on hitters. He reminds me a bit of David Cone. I remember seeing Cone's arm whipping through at that low three-quarter angle with his hand, really finishing off his split-finger, slider and curveball. It also put movement on his fastball.

Leake needs to remember to get his hand on top of the ball and come through it, rather than coming around it. These are things that can be fixed fairly easily, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him have it figured out on his own by his next start.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/...=ncaa_baseball

These older threads are fun to look at.

Loved this article by Hershiser.

[BuckeyeRedleg]

From page 13 of this thread...

Originally Posted by BuckeyeRedleg

I must stress again how much I really love this pick.

It's got a "Moneyball" feel to it.

Originally Posted by BuckeyeRedleg

It has been mentioned in this thread the comparison between Bronson Arroyo and Mike Leake and if you would take Leake if you knew his career would go like Arroyo's. I would have to say that I would definitely still take Leake. One thing we have learned through the process of M2's re-do draft's is really how few impact players come out of each draft.

Take 1995 for instance, as it was the year that Arroyo was drafted. Here are some of the names of the draftees (in the order they were drafted) that eventually signed with their team from that 1995 draft:

Erstad, Wood, Helton, Jenkins, M. Morris, Halladay, M. Anderson, Bellhorn, Beltran, C. Wilson, Casey, Winn, Arroyo, Dempster, LaRue, B. Schnieder, Nathan, Burnett, J. Rivera, Freel, Delucci, A. Miles, Fuentes........and let's not forget NE QB, Tom Brady, taken by Montreal in the 18th round (#507).

Of the players listed here, only Erstad (1-1), Wood (1-4), and Helton (1-8) went in the top 8. I may be missing a few here and there from later in the draft, but nobody that made more of an impact than the few listed here. Now, how would I personally rank these guys if I had hindsight and could re-do the 1995 draft?

1. Halladay
2. Beltran
3. Helton
4. Wood
5. Nathan
6. Burnett
7. Dempster
8. Morris
9. Winn
10. Casey
11. Arroyo
12. Erstad
13. Jenkins
14. Fuentes
15. J. Rivera


Now you can quibble with some of these rankings. You could make an argument for moving guys up and down the list, but I did this kind of fast and the gist of it anyway is that in hindsight, Arroyo ended up being one of the top 10-15 players in this entire draft. If you can get a guy in the 1st round and know he'd be one of the top 10-15 (with the potential to be even better) you would make that pick every time. You could say "well, Leake was drafted 8th, but Arroyo is only in the top 10-15". To that I say, look at the top eight of the 1995 draft. Only three were relevant enough to even make this list. One of those eight is our very own Ben Davis (former catcher and now RHP, Sarasota). The burnout rate is so high that not even a top 10 draft pick is guaranteed to make an impact or even step on a major league field.

In my opinion, another reason why I like Leake is because I feel his ceiling his higher than Arroyo's. I'm of the opinion that if Leake just does what he's supposed to he'll end up like Arroyo, but he has the potential to do even better (Tim Hudson). Even so, if all he becomes is a Bronson Arroyo, I make this pick at #8, EVERY SINGLE TIME.

Just sayin.