Pitching staff projections for 07'

[jacksonianmarch]

My money is on the mutts too.

[Gom]

I think Zito is going to the Mets. For NYY to land him it's gonna have to be a huge offer.

 

Why do you think the Yankees have to make a huge offer over the Mets? That makes no sense at all. Is Flushing such a better place to play than the Bronx? It's not like the scrutiny, media, or expectations are really that different from one borough to the next.

 

As for Sox predictions:

 

Schilling 15-8 4.20 ERA 196 IP

Beckett 16-11 4.79 ERA 215 IP

Matsuzaka 11-7 4.22 ERA 181 IP

Papelbon 13-6 3.56 ERA 152 IP

Wakefield 8-10 5.02 ERA 142 IP

 

I think Schilling and Wakefield will continue their decline with age...Matsuzaka will struggle a bit as is the case with all pitchers who come from other leagues in their first year [with very few exeptions]. Papelbon is the real mystery, he can be anywhere from a Cy Young candidate, but with the looseness in the joint, I think the Sox will be wise to keep him on a strict pitch count, hence the lower than average IP. Beckett will be a horse, and he will improve slightly, but not significantly. I will predict that the increase in effectiveness of Beckett will be offset by Schilling and Wakefield's decline due to age. In other words, expect the same from Beckett, Schilling, and Wakefield. Matsuzaka and Papelbon are much bigger wildcards, and I expect Papelbon to have a better season than Matsuzaka.

[scaffolds]

Papelbon is a horse. He's going to through a lot of innings in his MLB career. I don't worry about that too much.

 

Size wise he is, as a starter there is a lot of questions.

[example1]

I agree scaffolds. I'm just convinced that he will be preserved and used to his full ability in one capacity or another for years and years to come.

[scaffolds]

Not all of the questions are health related, Papelbon has a VERY limeted background as a starter, he went to Mississippi state as a first baseman, became a pitcher and was a reliever only in college after the Sox drafted him he was a starter for about a year and half. After i posted earlier he is a two pitch pitcher and unless he can get a least a third pitch to be average he may struggle. People speculate that because he had sucess as a closer he can have it as a starter and that's not true.

[a700hitter]

Not all of the questions are health related' date=' Papelbon has a VERY limeted background as a starter, he went to Mississippi state as a first baseman, became a pitcher and was a reliever only in college after the Sox drafted him he was a starter for about a year and half. After i posted earlier he is a two pitch pitcher and unless he can get a least a third pitch to be average he may struggle. People speculate that because he had sucess as a closer he can have it as a starter and that's not true.[/quote']He may end up being a guy that doesn't go very deep into games. We'll just have to see.

[edge4414]

Not all of the questions are health related' date=' Papelbon has a VERY limeted background as a starter, he went to Mississippi state as a first baseman, became a pitcher and was a reliever only in college after the Sox drafted him he was a starter for about a year and half. After i posted earlier he is a two pitch pitcher and unless he can get a least a third pitch to be average he may struggle. People speculate that because he had sucess as a closer he can have it as a starter and that's not true.[/quote']

 

Scaf

Would you agree Pap has a + fastball and + splitter? He also has a mediocre slider and he has a proven ability to get MLB players out.

 

If you agree to those things then it is easy to project success as a starter especially when he has had success as a starter already. Even if it is a limited sample all evidence suggests he will be very good. I can see him projected as a #2 but when you say #3 or #4 you lose me.

Tell me how good Verlander's 3rd pitch is right now.

[a700hitter]

Scaf

Would you agree Pap has a + fastball and + splitter? He also has a mediocre slider and he has a proven ability to get MLB players out.

 

If you agree to those things then it is easy to project success as a starter especially when he has had success as a starter already. Even if it is a limited sample all evidence suggests he will be very good. I can see him projected as a #2 but when you say #3 or #4 you lose me.

Tell me how good Verlander's 3rd pitch is right now.

Doesn't Verlander have a hellacious curve ball when he is going good?

[jsinger121]

Doesn't Verlander have a hellacious curve ball when he is going good?

 

Yes but he is essentially a 2 pitch pitcher as well. Fastball and Curveball.

[a700hitter]

Yes but he is essentially a 2 pitch pitcher as well. Fastball and Curveball.

He only throws one type of fastball?

[scaffolds]

If you compare Verlander to Papelbon you lose me, Verlander is a lot better pitcher than Papelbon. First of all has a proven record as a starter, Papelbon hasn't, Verlander's fastball is 95-96 which he can maintain deep into games touching 97-98, Papelbon can throw 95 for an inning, as a starter he was 91-93. While Papelbon has a good splitter (can't call it great) Verlander has better breaking pitches. If your point is Papelbon is as good as Verlander your point isn't objective.

 

One more point you keep saying that Papelbon has evindence of sucess. As what as a closer? as a stater? If is as a starter, it wasn't in the ML. he had sucess in Sarasota and Portland, but even at those levels Verlander was better. You keep saying he is a #2, where is the proof that he is a #2 is he better than Schillings or Beckett? of course not, I won't be at all surprised to see Papelbon be the #5 starter in the Sox rotation in 2007.

[MANNYHOF24]

If you compare Verlander to Papelbon you lose me, Verlander is a lot better pitcher than Papelbon. First of all has a proven record as a starter, Papelbon hasn't, Verlander's fastball is 95-96 which he can maintain deep into games touching 97-98, Papelbon can throw 95 for an inning, as a starter he was 91-93. While Papelbon has a good splitter (can't call it great) Verlander has better breaking pitches. If your point is Papelbon is as good as Verlander your point isn't objective.

 

One more point you keep saying that Papelbon has evindence of sucess. As what as a closer? as a stater? If is as a starter, it wasn't in the ML. he had sucess in Sarasota and Portland, but even at those levels Verlander was better. You keep saying he is a #2, where is the proof that he is a #2 is he better than Schillings or Beckett? of course not, I won't be at all surprised to see Papelbon be the #5 starter in the Sox rotation in 2007.

 

When Papelbon started in 05, he was at 93-95 for most of the game in all three of his starts. What makes Papelbon so great is his location and his fastball has great movement. You put so much emphsis on velocity when Location and movement is so much more important. Just ask Josh Beckett whose fast ball s very straight.

[Cityofchampions33]

If you compare Verlander to Papelbon you lose me, Verlander is a lot better pitcher than Papelbon. First of all has a proven record as a starter, Papelbon hasn't, Verlander's fastball is 95-96 which he can maintain deep into games touching 97-98, Papelbon can throw 95 for an inning, as a starter he was 91-93. While Papelbon has a good splitter (can't call it great) Verlander has better breaking pitches. If your point is Papelbon is as good as Verlander your point isn't objective.

 

One more point you keep saying that Papelbon has evindence of sucess. As what as a closer? as a stater? If is as a starter, it wasn't in the ML. he had sucess in Sarasota and Portland, but even at those levels Verlander was better. You keep saying he is a #2, where is the proof that he is a #2 is he better than Schillings or Beckett? of course not, I won't be at all surprised to see Papelbon be the #5 starter in the Sox rotation in 2007.

 

Papelbon did have 3 or so starts in the ML the season prior to last, in which he held the Angels and others to 2 runs in I believe 5 innings each outing. However, that by no means is a track record, and I believe that his 3rd and 4th pitches will make or break him.

 

Also, Gom, I'm not so sure Matsuzaka will struggle. I mean he has 4 MLB caliber pitches, will pitch a lot less than he did in Japan, does well in the spotlight, and he is already used to having the game called by his catcher (so Tek will have total control, and that usually fares well).

So basically you have a catcher who knwos the league better than anyone, a pitcher cocky anough to get through it, and a solid arsenal of pitches to unleash on hitters.

[edge4414]

If you compare Verlander to Papelbon you lose me, Verlander is a lot better pitcher than Papelbon. First of all has a proven record as a starter, Papelbon hasn't, Verlander's fastball is 95-96 which he can maintain deep into games touching 97-98, Papelbon can throw 95 for an inning, as a starter he was 91-93. While Papelbon has a good splitter (can't call it great) Verlander has better breaking pitches. If your point is Papelbon is as good as Verlander your point isn't objective.

 

One more point you keep saying that Papelbon has evindence of sucess. As what as a closer? as a stater? If is as a starter, it wasn't in the ML. he had sucess in Sarasota and Portland, but even at those levels Verlander was better. You keep saying he is a #2, where is the proof that he is a #2 is he better than Schillings or Beckett? of course not, I won't be at all surprised to see Papelbon be the #5 starter in the Sox rotation in 2007.

 

You are completely missing the point. No one compared them as pitchers just your comment that you can't win with 2 pitchers. I just pointed out Verlander was very successful as a rookie with 2 pitches. There are many others with a mediocre 3rd pitch.

I don't care what a pitcher did in college as far as start or close. It is irrelevant! Pap started throughout his minor league career. That is evidence of success as well as half a season with the Sox in 2005. That is a lot more evidence than most young pitchers who come to the MLB wouldn't you agree.

So lets stick to his "stuff". Pap drops to 93-94 not 91. In any case so what. He maintains late movement with good control. I would rather have that than a 96 mph straight fastball.

We are talking about his projection not where he will be next year also it is irrelevant where he rates on the Sox only in regards to #2's throughout MLB.

[riverside sluggers]

If you compare Verlander to Papelbon you lose me, Verlander is a lot better pitcher than Papelbon. First of all has a proven record as a starter, Papelbon hasn't, Verlander's fastball is 95-96 which he can maintain deep into games touching 97-98, Papelbon can throw 95 for an inning, as a starter he was 91-93. While Papelbon has a good splitter (can't call it great) Verlander has better breaking pitches. If your point is Papelbon is as good as Verlander your point isn't objective.

 

One more point you keep saying that Papelbon has evindence of sucess. As what as a closer? as a stater? If is as a starter, it wasn't in the ML. he had sucess in Sarasota and Portland, but even at those levels Verlander was better. You keep saying he is a #2, where is the proof that he is a #2 is he better than Schillings or Beckett? of course not, I won't be at all surprised to see Papelbon be the #5 starter in the Sox rotation in 2007.

 

So our expectations should be that he will be decent or below average for Boston this season?

[scaffolds]

Actually you're the one who is missing the point. Papelbon startered three games in the ML in 2005 if you called that a sucess this conversation will be a very short one. Verlander besides a better fastball than Papelbon and isn't straight has a plus curveball and in top of that while he doesn't used as much he should he change up is at least average. Papelbon not matter how much you wanted it to be is 91-93 and a splitter that is a good one, but not great. My college point was to tell you about his background but you don't wanted hear about that and where rude on the information.

[jsinger121]

So our expectations should be that he will be decent or below average for Boston this season?

 

It shouldn't be. He is likely a pitcher who can win 15 games for us next season. Who knows what type of pitches he is working on this offseason. Hell he has the work ethic to learn a new pitch. He ended up learning the splitter from schilling and its a pretty damn good pitch in my mind.

[edge4414]

Actually you're the one who is missing the point. Papelbon startered three games in the ML in 2005 if you called that a sucess this conversation will be a very short one. Verlander besides a better fastball than Papelbon and isn't straight has a plus curveball and in top of that while he doesn't used as much he should he change up is at least average. Papelbon not matter how much you wanted it to be is 91-93 and a splitter that is a good one' date=' but not great. My college point was to tell you about his background but you don't wanted hear about that and where rude on the information.[/quote']

 

I don't believe I was rude just saying college info is irrelevant. You are ignoring his minor league career as a starter. I just want to get our disagreement to his stuff not inexperience. As far as Verlander goes I will repeat I am not comparing them as pitchers just they are similar in they rely on 2 pitches. But I will argue Verlanders movement on his fastball. I watched him quite a bit this year. His fastball is relatively straight. Pap has quite a bit more movement. Would I rate Verlander a better starter? Yes I would he's a #1 IMO.

Just to be clear and I will quit, are you saying Pap projects to a #5?

[jsinger121]

I don't believe I was rude just saying college info is irrelevant. You are ignoring his minor league career as a starter. I just want to get our disagreement to his stuff not inexperience. As far as Verlander goes I will repeat I am not comparing them as pitchers just they are similar in they rely on 2 pitches. But I will argue Verlanders movement on his fastball. I watched him quite a bit this year. His fastball is relatively straight. Pap has quite a bit more movement. Would I rate Verlander a better starter? Yes I would he's a #1 IMO.

Just to be clear and I will quit, are you saying Pap projects to a #5?

 

If he is thinking Papelbon is a #5 it is a joke. His fastball may not be as hard as verlanders but he has a hell of alot more movement and his splitter is better than just average. I would expect the splitter to be alot better this year as well as his slider which was not that bad. The only pitch Verlander has a significant edge is his curveball. His fastball is hard but it is straight. I'd rather have Papelbon's fastball which has a lot more movement.

[scaffolds]

My final point, I have never said that he projects a #5, actually he projects a #3, but that i won't be surprised that he will be the #5 in 2007.

[Fried Neckbones]

My final point' date=' I have never said that he projects a #5, actually he projects a #3, but that i won't be surprised that he will be the #5 in 2007.[/quote']

 

Of course he will start '07 as a 5. When he is going into his first full season as a starter and the other parts of the rotation are Schill, Beckett, Matsuzaka (please, please), and Wake I don't see any reason the put him anywhere else but the #5 starter. In '08 I can see him as a #3, and a nasty #3 at that, but why rush him into it.

[Gom]

Papelbon did have 3 or so starts in the ML the season prior to last, in which he held the Angels and others to 2 runs in I believe 5 innings each outing. However, that by no means is a track record, and I believe that his 3rd and 4th pitches will make or break him.

 

Also, Gom, I'm not so sure Matsuzaka will struggle. I mean he has 4 MLB caliber pitches, will pitch a lot less than he did in Japan, does well in the spotlight, and he is already used to having the game called by his catcher (so Tek will have total control, and that usually fares well).

So basically you have a catcher who knwos the league better than anyone, a pitcher cocky anough to get through it, and a solid arsenal of pitches to unleash on hitters.

 

I think that Papelbon will do better than the consensus here, and Matsuzaka will do worse. MLB caliber? How about he throws a pitch in the majors before we deem his stuff major league caliber? As for pitching less, he will pitch more frequently than in Japan.

[TheKilo]

I think that Papelbon will do better than the consensus here' date=' and Matsuzaka will do worse. MLB caliber? How about he throws a pitch in the majors before we deem his stuff major league caliber? As for pitching less, he will pitch more frequently than in Japan.[/quote']

 

 

 

If you honestly don't think Matsuzaka isn't MLB caliber then your homerism really does blind you.

 

If the Yankees bid $51 million you would be pencilling him into your #2 slot.

[Peters34]

If that would be our starting rotation we would be very good

:thumbsup:

If that is it we would deffintly make it to the ALCS

[Peters34]

Papelbon is very good

i think that was a very good move to wait out his injury

i think that he should be penciled in as a #4 Picture (if we get D-Mat if not then #3

[Gom]

If you honestly don't think Matsuzaka isn't MLB caliber then your homerism really does blind you.

 

If the Yankees bid $51 million you would be pencilling him into your #2 slot.

 

Two or three behind or ahead of Mussina. There is a huge gap between 1 and 2 with the Yankees. I think he would start off third behind Mussina. He is definitely better than Johnson.

 

Excuse me for wanting a player to actually play in the major leagues before I deem him with having four major league caliber pitches. Sometimes you get surprised, both positively or negatively. It's not homerism, it's being burned in the past [Contreras, Irabu] and getting more than expected [Matsui] that has kind of taught me to temper things. None of the players the Yankees got turned out to be what was expected. Even Matsui, who came here with the hype of being a homer hitting outfielder with poor skills otherwise, has turned into a decent defensive left fielder, with good instincts, good baserunning, solid all around hitter with good pop in his bat. Call it what you will.

 

Was there a point to your post?

[Cocos Disciples]

Matsui was more than expected?

 

He was deemed Godzilla.

 

He hit 16 homers his just year..what a pleasant surprise over an average of 37 homers per year in Japan.

[TheKilo]

Two or three behind or ahead of Mussina. There is a huge gap between 1 and 2 with the Yankees. I think he would start off third behind Mussina. He is definitely better than Johnson.

 

Excuse me for wanting a player to actually play in the major leagues before I deem him with having four major league caliber pitches. Sometimes you get surprised, both positively or negatively. It's not homerism, it's being burned in the past [Contreras, Irabu] and getting more than expected [Matsui] that has kind of taught me to temper things. None of the players the Yankees got turned out to be what was expected. Even Matsui, who came here with the hype of being a homer hitting outfielder with poor skills otherwise, has turned into a decent defensive left fielder, with good instincts, good baserunning, solid all around hitter with good pop in his bat. Call it what you will.

 

Was there a point to your post?

 

 

Would it be enitrely unreasonable to compare Japanese ball to AAA ball? All I hear from Yankee fans is how MLB caliber Hughes will be and how big of an ace he'll be for years to come, but has he thrown a pitch?

 

Is Phillip Hughes MLB caliber?

[jacksonianmarch]

Matsui was more than expected?

 

He was deemed Godzilla.

 

He hit 16 homers his just year..what a pleasant surprise over an average of 37 homers per year in Japan.

 

I think the more than expected is in terms of attitude and average. Nobody thought he'd continue the power argument, but I dont think anyone thought he'd improve his average.

 

As for Hughes, nobody truly knows. Just like nobody truly knows about Matsuzaka and just like nobody though Wang would be top of the rotation caliber. For the past few yrs anyway, most scouts have been pretty good with the top pitching prospects in the game. The past 3 were King Felix, Liriano and now Hughes. The first two turned out alright in performance thus far, but nobody truly knows.

[TheKilo]

I think the more than expected is in terms of attitude and average. Nobody thought he'd continue the power argument, but I dont think anyone thought he'd improve his average.

 

As for Hughes, nobody truly knows. Just like nobody truly knows about Matsuzaka and just like nobody though Wang would be top of the rotation caliber. For the past few yrs anyway, most scouts have been pretty good with the top pitching prospects in the game. The past 3 were King Felix, Liriano and now Hughes. The first two turned out alright in performance thus far, but nobody truly knows.

 

 

 

So what happens when those same scouts predict success for Matsuzaka? Does that also not mean he's likely to have success?