When The Hype Goes Awry
It's August 30th, and I'm not quite sure what to do with myself. This is unfamiliar territory. For years, the late-August conversations have revolved around prospects and the composition of future Rangers rosters and largely irrelevant transactions and minor points of controversy (e.g. bad umpiring, or the fallout from the Scott Feldman-instigated 2006 brawl with the Angels), and on the rare occasions when late-season contention was a reality (2004 and 2009), there was typically this undercurrent of nervous, pennant race-fueled excitement that kept us engaged.
Right now, though, we're caught in the middle of a dead zone of sorts -- the Rangers are still multiple lengths ahead of the 7.5-game-back Athletics and heavy favorites to capture the division crown, but they're likely three weeks away from rendering that a fait accompli, and until then the bulk of the attention will be focused on preserving team health and other such things that assume extreme importance in October but just aren't very compelling topics right now. The farm system is no longer at the forefront of late-season Rangers discussion, and some of the attempts to discuss next year's team have been drowned out by pleas to "enjoy what we have right now." Okay. I am. Now what?
Rather than telling you about how Nelson Cruz and Ian Kinsler will make the Rangers a better team down the stretch or conveying some other glaringly obvious idea (or, even worse, recapping this weekend's brutal set of games), I wanted to take a moment to look at something written over this past weekend by Jeff Wilson of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram -- an article in which Michael Kirkman is not only described as likelier to nail down a post-season bullpen spot than Derek Holland (this I can agree with), but also as a potentially better prospect than Holland going forward.
I don't know that I can agree with that viewpoint, nor do I think that this sort of article would have been written if Kirkman had yielded 2-3 runs in his five major league innings of work to date rather than his present total of zero; however, the mere fact that this "Kirkman > Holland" idea is even being perpetuated resonates with me at some level, because it all ties back into the TINSTAAPP (There Is No Such Thing As A Pitching Prospect) theory and the oft-chaotic and random nature of pitching development. Put more bluntly, I don't think many people prepared themselves for the eventuality that Holland would still be trapped in developmental limbo nearly two full seasons later.
Around 18 months ago, industry publication Baseball America tabbed Holland as the fifth-best left-handed pitching prospect and 31st-best prospect in the game; the latter figure is a tad misleading, as once you dig beyond the truly elite prospects there isn't significant variation in talent, and ESPN.com's Keith Law illustrated this by going a step further and slotting Holland into the No. 21 spot while firing off this prospect synopsis: "[Holland] doesn't have the raw upside of [Neftali] Feliz, but he's not far behind him in potential and is ahead of him in command and feel for pitching, and is the most likely of Texas' horde (pun intended) of pitching prospects to contribute to the big club in 2009."
That was then. Today, we have media implications of Holland tumbling down the prospect ladder. And this is hardly a unique phenomenon in the context of the Rangers' farm system: former mid-to-upper-range prospects like Omar Poveda (traded) and Michael Main (traded) and Blake Beavan (traded) and Kasey Kiker (isn't good) disappointed and/or were pared from the system. More elite pitching talent in the vein of Martin Perez and Tanner Scheppers has performed relatively well, but hasn't busted out in the way we had grown accustomed to seeing. The only pitcher from the Rangers' latest wave of pitching talent who has meaningfully contributed to the major league rotation has been Tommy Hunter, and I can readily see the argument for him being a mediocre No. 4-caliber starter from this point forward.
The TINSTAAP theory holds that young, talented minor league pitchers are so unpredictable/unreliable -- and their attrition rate so high -- that they're really not "prospects" in the way that their positional counterparts are, and here again it's rearing its ugly head. Since Law lavished praise upon Holland in early 2009, his strike-zone command has seemingly stagnated -- or outright regressed -- and his velocity has dipped slightly while he's been nicked by injuries, and he'll now enter his age-24 season having not yet established himself as anything more than a long reliever/spot starter. I still like Holland, but this is all something to think about the next time the hype machine manufactures a new, exciting, can't-miss pitching prospect and we, despite knowing better, collectively buy in.
Analysis, Prospects, The Season
Reader Comments (26)
The hype around a Mr Purke comes to mind.
It's good to be the next hot thing.
Typically it is the 2nd string QB coming in after an injury and and having the game of a life time.
Unfortunately defenses (and hitters) adjust and then we see the traditional sophmore slump.
Fortunately, we always seem to have the next hot thing waiting in the wings......................
BTW, Hunter and Holland will be fine.
Haha, man, I still don't get why everyone is so down on Hunter. I don't care what your stats say. The guy goes out there and busts ass every time he starts, and is averaging 3 ER per start! 3! Stats don't mean jack if you're producing.
Take away Hunters start where he gave up 8 runs, and then where does that put him in the hearts of Ranger fans? Hopefully not the same place that you people put Colby Lewis this weekend. Whatever.
First off, I read that Wilson article and thought, what reflexive and shallow writing! Worthy of the Evan Grant knee-jerk trophy. Only thing missing was a reference to Holland regressing due to the heat. Rubbish.
As to "hype", I've two thoughts, 1.) what MJH and JP, Cole, and others do is simply tell us who in the system is performing at levels typically beyond their place, and as such giving us watch alerts on those players, 2.) the hype is created when message boards light up with posters who, usually on nothing more than a brief synopsis from the above, become qualified player development guys and start advocating for moving this/that guy up/down based on a 50 inning or 100 bat run. It's compounded when someone on the ML roster struggles and would be personnel directors begin arguing in multiple page threads over whose #s analysis is most valid.
Somewhat a simplification to be sure but, one can go to multiple sites and look over the Davis/Smoak/Davis/Smoak/Moreland threads or look at those wanting to promote Scheppers when the bullpen was soft earlier in the season to see what I'm talking about.
We are the hype. Which is ultimately a positive thing because of the fan interest generated. Discussion, passion, and baseball edification are what draws us here. And if we sometimes over-analyze, or over-simplify, or over-generalize, it's a function of being engaged, maybe overly so, but that's not a bad thing so long as we can keep perspective. Which by and large, I think most of us do. Unlike Mr. Wilson in his Kirkman piece.
Stats do mean something RW's 'stache. Could Tommy Hunter in the long run be a successful ML pitcher? Of course he can. Can he do it while carrying such a low strike out rate? Perhaps, but he would be the extremely RARE pitcher to accomplish this feat. In the long run, he definitely need to miss more bats... see Scott Feldman.
@ RW moustache First are you the Ron Washington twitter guy? If so, well done.
Second, as much as I'm thrilled that Tommy Hunter is producing so well, you have to admit he doesn't have the pure stuff necessary (and I mean fastball velocity, sick offspeed pitches) to be a top of the rotation guy. As we've all seen, when Tommy's location is off, he's very hittable because of that lack of top echelon stuff like CJ has. Lewis has a nasty slider that helps him overcome himself if he has a bad location day, even if he doesn't have CJ like stuff either. But again, I love Tommy and hope he keeps his good results party up.
For those stat people, Hunter's FIP (5.18) is more than a run and a half higher than Lewis, because of all the homers and much less strikeouts.
Off subject: If the playoffs started today, do you want CJ pitching the first game or Lee (or Colby)? And if you choose Lee (or CJ or Colby), do you trust him if he gives up a couple of basehits in the 7th or 8th with less than two outs?
"and I can readily see the argument for him being a mediocre No. 4-caliber starter from this point forward." (re: Hunter)
The only real knock on Hunter is that he doesn't strike people out. Other than that, when he has control, he pitches "smart" and has been pretty damned good. I guess we will see, and there's always Feldman to compare him to, but I wouldn't be surprised if Hunter is a decent middle rotation guy for this club for the next 5 years.
Holland was rushed a bit last year, but if not for the injury earlier this year this conversation might be moot. He was astonishingly good in AAA this spring, and without the injury perhaps he gets his legs under him and takes off this season.
We all say we know about the small sample thing, but, come on. Kirkman has had a roller coaster ride through the minors, still has command issues that outstrip those of Holland, and has had a few nice games so far in the majors. This entire idea that Holland has somehow lost favor in the organization, or that Kirkman has passed him by is ridiculous. Both are wild cards right now, with Holland still more likely to be a success given the entirety of his performance and development history.
Kirkman's improvement the last couple years is legit, and very exciting. But I see no reason whatsoever to compare the two or to use his success to say anything negative about Holland.
...and mark this down. If Holland is healthy next year he will be a very good starting pitcher, mid-rotation level performance with flashes of more than that. I think he was on his way to doing that this year when he went on the DL. For me his success is merely delayed.
I'm wondering if Perez may fall into the category Joey is speaking of. He's certainly struggled this year. Of course, baseball people will say, "Look at how much younger he is than his competition!" Valid point. But I have to think the Rangers are a tiny bit surprised that he plateaued a bit this year.
I certainly am not knocking Perez. I hope he's in our rotation two years from now. (Along with Holland and Hunter).
What tball said. I don't get the growing sentiment that Holland is a bust or has declined. To me, his development/impact has merely been delayed. Did I just dream the near 1 hitter last year? The 3 hitter? The DOMINANT AAA April (better than what Kirkman showed there at any time this year)? The 3 very good to quality ML starts this May? I am not arguing that he's been screwed or wronged by not getting a chance this year -- he's been hurt, there is a pennant race to be won and there was an investment in Harden. But other than a decrease in velo by maybe 2 mph (and he still sits at 91-93) and an increased propensity to give up HRs, where is the regression? I am just as high on Holland as the day that I saw him domininate in his Frisco home debut.
I will add this - if anything, the dissapointment re/ Holland centers on him not "grabbing the bull by the horns" and establishing himself in this rotation. But isn't that largely a product of opportunity (akin FIP - there are things he can't control). And do we have 100% faith in this management's ability to correctly identify the worthy candidates for the starting rotation? To wit:
1. Harden was allowed to remain in the rotation far past the point where it was clear he wasn't one of the 5 best guys and in fact continues to reside in the rotation;
2. Harrison was given a rotation spot based on a few innings of SPRING TRAINING ball, coming of a major injury; he gets hurt and comes back with no shot to make the rotation. What changed?
3. Hunter was deemed a lock for a rotation spot, was in fact the #3, gets hurt and can't reclaim his job when healthy? But then makes one start and then is deemed not able to be replaced when the other previously hurt guys come back?
4. Feldman is denied the rotation in 09 then given a multiyear deal in 2010 as he is blowing up on the mound.
5. The numerous other #5 candidates that have been rolled through here the past 3 years.
6. The trade of Danks. The pickup of McCarthy.
My point is, I do like this management and understand that there are hits and misses, but they haven't been hitting the fairway on their SP analysis around here. Who's to say with opportunity (and health) Holland wouldn't be doing EXACTLY what we expected him to do?
Agree on Holland. He has been given a very short leash since coming back from the DL b/c of the pennant race. It usually takes a veteran pitcher several starts to get going again in those situations. Rangers couldn't give him that time. I do worry about him still being injured/not right b/c his velocity is down.
Agree on Hunter, because... and this goes for all of our young/unproven pitchers on the team: Hunter (first full year), C.J. (unproven starter), Lewis (just back to majors), Holland (still trying to prove himself), Feliz (first full year)- these guys are pitching more innings (maybe not Feliz) and in higher leverage situations (every Feliz outing) and trying to prove they belong. There is going to be some wearing down emotionally and physically.
My hope is, as they hit the home stretch, they will get another shot of energy.
Kind of interesting where the pitchers have come from when you think about how it was all cobbled together.
Yes yes and yes. It's hot outside - miserably hot. You try pitching in meaningful games in that heat. Texas has a hitter-friendly ballpark, meaning balls will go out here where they won't elsewhere - that's just a fact. It's going to be hard for a Texas pitcher to put up gaudy stats all year long here. Hell, look at Cliff Lee - he hasn't exactly been blowing people away lately. The other thing, as mentioned above, these guys except for Lee and CJ are all very young and/or inexperienced. And CJ hasn't ever pitched this many innings before, nor has he been a starter in the bigs an entire, full season before. So fans need to just relax and chill out.
And anyway, if I were them I'd be a lot more concerned with our terrible offense. That's where there is truly cause for concern heading into the playoffs.
It is way too early to pigeonhole Holland or Hunter. Look for instance at a couple of the starters on As -- Trevor Cahill, and Gio Gonzalez. Prior to this season both had mediocre numbers. Neither of them have what you would consider "dominant stuff" (i.e. their fastballs sit low 90s. Each is a successful pitcher because they command their fastballs and secondary pitches and know how to get batters out. The last step of going from prospect to made-it is the toughest and the least visible -- it is narrowing the radius of the zone where your pitches land to by as little as a few inches. All the guys who are on the prospect list of the Rangers have the stuff to compete - they just need to develop the ability to not miss their spots as often or by as much. It is the type of refinement you make in going from a 4 handicap to a 0 in golf - missing a few less fairways, a little better sand save percentage, and incremental improvements in putts per GIR.
Look at Cliff Lee. On solely a raw stuff basis (velocity and movement) he is indistinguishable from Holland or many other Rangers starters. The difference is that when he throws a pitch, the radius of where it will land in relation to the spot he is trying to hit is much much smaller. This is command. And he knows what works to keep hitters off balance and guessing. This is knowing how to pitch. And he doesn't get rattled and stays steady. This is makeup.
Some guys will never develop command/makeup/knowing how to pitch. Some will. The problem is, you don't know until you have given them a couple years in the majors (at least) to give it a shot. Teams out of contention or with no other choices have the luxury of giving young guys time to figure it out. Colby Lewis went to Japan and figured it out.
Right now, we do not have the luxury of innings to devote to giving Holland or our other young guys practice at the MLB level. We are finally a playoff team. And I don't know how well AAA innings compare to MLB innings in terms of promoting development (would love to see someone do a statistics study on that one!). But as far as Holland goes, his chance is not over yet and will not be for a while.
"Second, as much as I'm thrilled that Tommy Hunter is producing so well, you have to admit he doesn't have the pure stuff necessary (and I mean fastball velocity, sick offspeed pitches) to be a top of the rotation guy. As we've all seen, when Tommy's location is off."
That is what people said about Greg Maddux when he first came up.
If Hunter is our mediocre #4 starter for the next few years then we will have one hell of a pitching staff! 24yo, makes $400k, 11-2 yep I'll take a half dozen of those please.
@Joel
Haha, I wish I was that twitter guy. That's quality stuff. As far as Hunter goes, I just refuse to buy into all of the stats that proves that he isn't a good pitcher. So far he has been a good pitcher and I'll refuse to believe otherwise until he proves me wrong. Call it luck, but the guy pitches well the majority of the time.
I've never liked Holland and I wanted to trade him last year while his value was still high. I still don't see how people view him so highly. Sure he has had some games where he looks brilliant but then again Rich Harden almost no hit the Twins. So what?
What made Holland so exciting as a prospect to many (KLaw, Callis, and definitely me) was his incredibly repeatable delivery in 2008. The kid had Cliff Lee's command that year. Last year he had a minor injury at the beginning of the season, made one start in AAA, and then spent the rest of the year in Texas. He only showed that brilliant command a few times, but it was there from time to time.
This year, he was brilliant early in the year at OKC, and his first start in Texas was pretty damn good. Since then, he's had several nagging injuries, and I'm inclined to believe that they waited too long to DL him the first time, and he might not be ready to be off the DL quite yet. I don't think he's quite right. When he's right, he repeats his delivery really well and shows great command. I still think that players in there. I believe, he's playing with some discomfort (or tightness or something). I just hope we get to see a fully healthy Holland sometime soon.
@ A Stephens - Well said. And have you noticed that those same player development experts are also omniscient GMs and flawless Managers? A poster on a thread here a few days ago (can't remember who) summed it up perfectly when he said, "I know baseball and the Rangers don't."
LOL @ Hunter as a mediocre #4. What a moronic statement.
LOL @ Hunter as a mediocre #4. What a moronic statement.
Not really. Hunter might be one of those guys who manages to outperform his FIP by a few ticks every season, but we're talking about a guy who has posted a comparatively low BABIP (.270) in 2009-10 -- which is unsustainable, and when it self-corrects his ERA will become more congruent with his FIP -- and hardly strikes anyone out. That, to me, is a No. 4-caliber starter in the predictive sense.
Also, don't misunderstand what I'm saying here -- being a "mediocre No. 4 pitcher" over 180-plus innings is actually quite valuable. Don't take this so personally. This is more a response to the people who catch a glimpse of Hunter's 3.66 ERA this year and immediately start thinking that he's No. 2-caliber material. There are more dimensions here that need to be considered than the surface stats.