Jays Younger Pitching

[TR50]

I realize their is a similar thread to this (i think) and you can call me ignorant but i think this can deserve its own thread.

I'll start off with Percey, whats happening with him, i don't follow the AAA, AA, A teams really at all and i remember hearing his name alot, i liked him when we got him and when litsch made his first start i thought percey could have dont the same....just wanna know, whats the status on him, hows he doing? any potential in him thats needed to be tapped making him a solid pitcher? Their was another younger pitcher but i cant recall his name, can anyone refresh my mind?

Now, Shawn Marcum, call me crazy but this guys is dazzling. He impresses me so much after each start, he is our most consistent pitcher right now, i think one day he could be a solid #2/3 starter around the league, can anyone else see him in that spot? I remember he struggled as a relief but played well as a starter last year and this year he has been brilliant, not one of the best young pitchers in the MLB but a solid starter around the L, i'm just so impressed with him, he surpassed my expectations.

McGowan has almost broken through as well, he has shown that he has great stuff and i think he is capable of becoming a possible Ace or #2 starter on a good rotation....both him and Marcum, i'd rather start them ahead of Chacin.

Casey Janssen, one last question/comment, he is obviously a great 7/8th inning guy but what do you think of him as a starter, i still think he can be the clubs future 2/3/4 pitcher, and assuming Ryan comes back you bump accardo to 8th inning, league to 7th, and if need be bump everyone up again, but Janssen, i still think he'd be a solid starter and his role with the Jays should be manning the 4/5 position with Litsch/Percey/Other Young Jay Arm at #5.

All in all our pitching is going to be great and i'm pretty sure our batting will find its way up the ladder soon enough but i would be very happy i the Jays had a pitching rotation like this next year:

(Assuming Burnett Jumps Ship)
Halladay
McGowan
Marcum
Janssen
Litsch

OR (if Burnett stays)
Hallada
McGowan
Burnett (Can flip flop with McGowan)
Marcum
Janssen/Litsch

What do you guys think? Are their any other pitchers you guys know of that may make this an even better rotation?

[risktaker91]

I tihnk Janssen stays in the bullpen where he has a lot of success.

Halladay
Burnett
McGowan
Marcum
Towers/Litsch/Chacin/Anyone else we sign.

[OldNo7]

From what I remember, as a starter, Janssen really got "figured out" by the other team's batters the 2nd and 3rd time through. I think that is why he is so effective from the bullpen because his delivery and mechanics are so different from what the hitters have been looking at for the first 6-7 innings of the game.

[tsherkin]

Janssen in the bullpen is ideal, as a 2- to 3-inning reliever. If he can diversify his pitching strategy, he has the stuff to be a starter but I don't know.

He pitched something like 40, 50 innings before the All-Star break and was tired... as a starter, you'd expect him to have something like 15-18 starts by the All-Star break, each presumably at 5+ innings... and that's a minimum of 75 innings. He doesn't have the stamina or strategy to be a starter just yet, so he stays in the 'pen and we're all happy about it.

Janssen's playing the sort of Mark Eichorn/Duane Ward role right now and it suits him.

As far as other young guys that look good, Accardo certainly doesn't suck and yeah, Marcum and McGowan are looking great.

Dusty's curveball blows pretty hard right now but he's got the heater, the changeup and the slider that all seem to work pretty well most nights. He needs to work hard on that curve, though, it'd be a nasty punch-out pitch and would help him produce more grounders. I wouldn't be sad to see him working on a splitter or a sinker.

He also needs to be more consistent.

In his last 7 starts, he's given up 6 (in under 2 innings), 0, 5, 0, 6, 2 and 0 earned runs.

Basically every other game, he's getting shelled; conversely, every other game, he's freaking brilliant.

So he needs some consistency and he needs to work more on inducing grounders. I'd love to see him tossing more 2-seamers and something with more downward action, as well as refining that curve.

Matt Morris, incidentally (the dude who started for the Giants tonight) has a really brutal 12-6 curve with solid control; if McGowan got that going instead of bouncing it 5 feet in front of the plate every other time he threw it, he'd be filthy.


This stuff is really highlighted if you look at his Bill James Game Scores over at baseball-reference.com.

The CG 1H SO was a 91, followed by a 32, a 71, a 29, a 61 and what I estimate to be a 72 (aha, and this is confirmed by the ESPN box score). His performance has been fluctuating pretty wildly. He's keeping his contact percentage down in the high 70s (77% before including tonight's game)

Incidentally, Torii Hunter is totally right; McGowan reminds me A LOT of a young Roy Halladay.

[TR50]

well McGowan was compared to Doc earlier

[OldNo7]

Janssen in the bullpen is ideal, as a 2- to 3-inning reliever. If he can diversify his pitching strategy, he has the stuff to be a starter but I don't know.

He pitched something like 40, 50 innings before the All-Star break and was tired... as a starter, you'd expect him to have something like 15-18 starts by the All-Star break, each presumably at 5+ innings... and that's a minimum of 75 innings. He doesn't have the stamina or strategy to be a starter just yet, so he stays in the 'pen and we're all happy about it.

I have to disagree with you. Its far different for a pitcher to pitch 4 out of every 6 games than to pitch one every five - that is where the fatigue came from regardless of number of innings pitched. Not to mention the times they had him warming up in the bullpen, only to not use him in the game.

[tsherkin]

-= original quote snipped =-



I have to disagree with you. Its far different for a pitcher to pitch 4 out of every 6 games than to pitch one every five - that is where the fatigue came from regardless of number of innings pitched. Not to mention the times they had him warming up in the bullpen, only to not use him in the game.

Eh, the warming up isn't anything, that's no different than the pitches a starter throws at the beginning of each inning before he faces the lineup.

You're correct in noting that pitching 4 out of 6 games is a little different but the overall workload on his arm is actually considerably greater as a starter and right now I just don't see Janssen functioning as an effective starter for us.

[OldNo7]

I think it was very positive for him to start last year and then go to the bullpen this year. He had success early, he got figured out by other teams a bit and had some bad games, but its great that we were able to keep him in the bigs and not send him back to the minors where his confidence might have taken a hit.

[jalenrose#5]

Here's how I look at it...

Halladay
Burnett
McGowan
Marcum
Chacin/Litsch (depends if Chacin is healthy)

Towers is the long man out of the pen

I'd also look to deal Janssen. He along with another piece might be able to net us a good SS. Just a thought.

Purcey is 3-5, and is progressing nicely. He's a high K pitcher who has dropped his BB totals. I think he's been injured lately so that'll hurt his cause.

Ricky Romero is who I'm trying to gauge right now. He's struggling in AA, and has been injured most of the year. I wanna see this Johan Santana makeup he was supposed to have with the 6th overall selection.

[OldNo7]

You really think of Purcey as high as a 3? I would much rather deal him over Janssen, who at least we have a better idea what he is and can become.

[Michael Bradley]

McGowan is the deal deal, IMO. His stuff was always there, it was just a matter of staying healthy and sharpening his command. He's done both so far. I like his chances of becoming at least a #3 starter, with a chance to move into #2. He's for real.

I'm worried about Marcum though. He's given up 19 home runs in 100 innings this year (1.71 HR/9). He gave up 14 home runs in 78 innings last year (1. 61 HR/9). Find me a starter with a 1.71 HR/9 and chances are he's going to be a dud. That's nearly 40 bombs per 200 innings. On the positive side, he's maintained a strong K/9 and his control is getting better. However, he has to improve his HR rate. He's looking like a #4 starter long-term to me (which is what most projected him to be). If he limits HR's, he can actually be better than that. The rest of his ratios are quite good.

Janssen has potential as a starter, probably a similar ceiling as Marcum though they are two different types of pitchers. Janssen is more groundball oriented and doesn't K as many hitters. The question is whether the Jays want to tamper with his success as a reliever and move him into the rotation next year. If League and Ryan are healthy, it should be a consideration.

Listch and Chacin to me are #5 starters. Listch is better at keeping the ball on the ground, but Chacin has better stuff. Either way, both are average/fringy pitchers. However, if those two guys are Toronto's 6 and 7 starters next year, I'll be pretty happy.

To me, the depth chart in the rotation is: Halladay, Burnett, McGowan, Marcum, Janssen, Chacin, and Litsch in that order. I'd love if the Jays flirted with the idea of moving League into the rotation, but I think that ship has sailed.

[jalenrose#5]

You really think of Purcey as high as a 3? I would much rather deal him over Janssen, who at least we have a better idea what he is and can become.

Sorry....was stating his record for this year

[tsherkin]

I think it was very positive for him to start last year and then go to the bullpen this year. He had success early, he got figured out by other teams a bit and had some bad games, but its great that we were able to keep him in the bigs and not send him back to the minors where his confidence might have taken a hit.

Yeah, it certainly didn't hurt him. Someone mentioned that he's pretty easy to figure out though and in the meantime while we wait for him to develop another pitch and mix up his pitching strategies, he's a gem in the 'pen and I want to keep him there.

McGowan is the deal deal, IMO. His stuff was always there, it was just a matter of staying healthy and sharpening his command. He's done both so far. I like his chances of becoming at least a #3 starter, with a chance to move into #2. He's for real.

McGowan is turning into a nice pitcher; his curveball is putrefied dog crap and he can't control it worth a damn but he's starting to control his heater, he's got a nice changeup and slider... And he still throws the curve, which messes with batters even when it's off.

I'm worried about Marcum though. He's given up 19 home runs in 100 innings this year (1.71 HR/9). He gave up 14 home runs in 78 innings last year (1. 61 HR/9). Find me a starter with a 1.71 HR/9 and chances are he's going to be a dud. That's nearly 40 bombs per 200 innings. On the positive side, he's maintained a strong K/9 and his control is getting better. However, he has to improve his HR rate. He's looking like a #4 starter long-term to me (which is what most projected him to be). If he limits HR's, he can actually be better than that. The rest of his ratios are quite good.

I don't think that the HR/9 rate is really a bad thing... he may give up homers but he still maintains a good ERA, a good WHIP, he's striking out almost three batters per walk, he's inducing groundballs on 40% of his batted balls...

I think the HR ratio is indicative of very little, at least on its own. Every pitcher gives up runs, every pitcher gives up homers. He's giving up 1 extra HR/9 compared to Halladay, which isn't bad considering the relative disparity in talent and experience.

Mind too that Marcum is a very raw pitcher in terms of pitch selection. His repetoire is mainly the fastball/changeup combo. His curveball and slider are relatively new additions to his pitching style because he didn't start using them until later in his career. When he firms those up, we'll see him turn into an even more devastating pitcher.

He projects as a nice middle rotation guy, for sure. I don't see him being an ace anymore than you do but I think second or third guy is in his reach and that'd be fine. He's not a strikeout pitcher, he's a control pitcher. He could certainly raise his K/9 rate but you're not talking about a guy who's going to get into Clemens/Johnson/Ryan/Gibson type territory and that's fine.

It's debatable as to whether or not any of those four were better than, say, Greg Maddux.

Janssen has potential as a starter, probably a similar ceiling as Marcum though they are two different types of pitchers.

Janssen is more groundball oriented and doesn't K as many hitters. The question is whether the Jays want to tamper with his success as a reliever and move him into the rotation next year. If League and Ryan are healthy, it should be a consideration.

I'd disagree, if only because his GB% isn't stunningly different from Marcum's and Marcum hasn't really established his slider or curveball as effective, consistent weapons yet. There's about a 5 or 6 percent difference this year.

Also, as far as easy outs, Marcum's inducing noticeably more infield flies and fewer line drives. Janssen definitely gives up fewer homers, a great MANY fewer homers (viewed as percentage of flyballs), so that's something in his favor.

With League back, we can make less use of Frasor without touching Janssen's time in the pen, which is the superior alternative in my view. Besides, we've got Halladay, Marcum, McGowan, Litsch and Burnett as starters (and whomever else in a pinch when Burnett takes his annual vacation).

Listch and Chacin to me are #5 starters. Listch is better at keeping the ball on the ground, but Chacin has better stuff. Either way, both are average/fringy pitchers. However, if those two guys are Toronto's 6 and 7 starters next year, I'll be pretty happy.

"Better stuff?"

You must be watching a different Chacin than I...

[Michael Bradley]

-= original quote snipped =-I don't think that the HR/9 rate is really a bad thing... he may give up homers but he still maintains a good ERA, a good WHIP, he's striking out almost three batters per walk, he's inducing groundballs on 40% of his batted balls...

I think the HR ratio is indicative of very little, at least on its own. Every pitcher gives up runs, every pitcher gives up homers. He's giving up 1 extra HR/9 compared to Halladay, which isn't bad considering the relative disparity in talent and experience.

There are only three stats a pitcher can control: strike outs, walks, and home runs. Balls put in play is generally luck/defense influenced. Marcum's home run rate is a bad thing because 1) a home run is a guaranteed run, and 2) there's no way to make an out with it. If Marcum is giving up 1.71 HR/9 consistently, then his ERA is going to balloon much higher than it is now.

Again, on the bright side, he has a good K/9 and doesn't walk too many hitters. However, it's something that has to be at least tempered down a bit. Brad Radke has a great career depite long ball tendencies, but it wasn't as bad as Marcum has shown so far, and Radke made up for it with brilliant control. Marcum still has a ways to go before I'm comfortable calling him a mid-rotation starter.

I'd disagree, if only because his GB% isn't stunningly different from Marcum's and Marcum hasn't really established his slider or curveball as effective, consistent weapons yet. There's about a 5 or 6 percent difference this year.

Also, as far as easy outs, Marcum's inducing noticeably more infield flies and fewer line drives. Janssen definitely gives up fewer homers, a great MANY fewer homers (viewed as percentage of flyballs), so that's something in his favor.

Janssen's GB:FB ratio was 1.80 last season, and I believe it was a bit higher in the minors. That's nearly a 2:1 ratio. It's gone down a bit this year, but he's added life to his fastball in a relief role (like most pitchers do), so maybe his approach changed or maybe it's just a lack of sample size. Regardless, Janssen can keep the ball on the ground and prevent home runs. Those are two very good characteristics for a pitcher. Whether he can last with a K/9 below 5.00 is another issue. I'd be willing to give it a shot. I like him A LOT better as a starter than Listch or Chacin.

"Better stuff?"

You must be watching a different Chacin than I...

Chacin can throw in the low-90's (though he's generally in the high-80's) and has at least an average to slightly above average cutter (the cutter he developed in 2004 is the only reason he's in the big leagues right now). I've yet to see Litsch throw even in the 90 range (though I haven't seen much of him). Stuff-wise, I'd rate Chacin slightly better than Listch. That doesn't mean Chacin has good stuff, but just that I'd rate it higher.

What I like more about Litsch is he puts the ball on the ground, had good command in the minors, and is only 22. That helps him tremendously. However, I'm worried about his lack of "stuff". Chacin can some times get away with it because he's a lefty. You won't find too many RHP who can't touch 90 on the gun that have long careers, unless their secondary stuff is GREAT.

If you gave me a choice, I'd definitely take Litsch long-term, but unless he adds a couple of MPH on his fastball, both of them look like #5 starters going forward. Although at this point, I think Chacin's ideal role is in the pen.

[tsherkin]

There are only three stats a pitcher can control: strike outs, walks, and home runs. Balls put in play is generally luck/defense influenced. Marcum's home run rate is a bad thing because 1) a home run is a guaranteed run, and 2) there's no way to make an out with it. If Marcum is giving up 1.71 HR/9 consistently, then his ERA is going to balloon much higher than it is now.

I disagree; there's no sense in projecting that his ERA will balloon much even if he IS giving up a homer a game. He's still inducing a lot of ground balls and infield flies, considerably more than home runs. And he's still striking out SOME batters.

That projection doesn't follow. If he gives up the longball, yes, he'll have some nights that are rough on him (multiple RBI homers, for example) but again, you're looking at a guy who hasn't fully established his pitching repetoire.

He's already a decent command pitcher and his slider and curve are works-in-progress. If you're gonna project one way, I'll project the other; I'd expect his ERA to at least balance out once he figures out those two pitches.

Again, on the bright side, he has a good K/9 and doesn't walk too many hitters. However, it's something that has to be at least tempered down a bit. Brad Radke has a great career depite long ball tendencies, but it wasn't as bad as Marcum has shown so far, and Radke made up for it with brilliant control. Marcum still has a ways to go before I'm comfortable calling him a mid-rotation starter.

Meh, I'm comfortable with where he is now and the fact that he still has a lot of room to improve. The Jays only have so much to work with in the first place but Marcum has pitched well this year.

Janssen's GB:FB ratio was 1.80 last season, and I believe it was a bit higher in the minors. That's nearly a 2:1 ratio. It's gone down a bit this year, but he's added life to his fastball in a relief role (like most pitchers do), so maybe his approach changed or maybe it's just a lack of sample size. Regardless, Janssen can keep the ball on the ground and prevent home runs. Those are two very good characteristics for a pitcher. Whether he can last with a K/9 below 5.00 is another issue. I'd be willing to give it a shot. I like him A LOT better as a starter than Listch or Chacin.

As you note, the relief role is significant, though perhaps not for the reason you indicate (or perhaps that as well). Relief pitchers come in and often clash with the style of the pitcher they are relieving. That in and of itself (nevermind a fresher arm) can often make it very difficult for a batter to do well against even a reliever who's falling into a semi-predictable rhythm.

I'd prefer Janssen in the bullpen if only because he's doing such a good job there and can be used in more games. 32 games as a starter versus 50-60 appearances as a reliever? Give me the latter, he'll impact more games that way.

Chacin can throw in the low-90's (though he's generally in the high-80's)

I mentioned as much in another thread talking about Chacin, I'm familiar with his velocity.

and has at least an average to slightly above average cutter (the cutter he developed in 2004 is the only reason he's in the big leagues right now). I've yet to see Litsch throw even in the 90 range (though I haven't seen much of him). Stuff-wise, I'd rate Chacin slightly better than Listch. That doesn't mean Chacin has good stuff, but just that I'd rate it higher.

I wouldn't disagree that Chacin has more velocity but since his control is such crap most nights, I don't think it a relevant point. You hang a 93 mph fastball in the wrong spot and even a weak major league hitter will take you to the fences.

What I like more about Litsch is he puts the ball on the ground, had good command in the minors, and is only 22. That helps him tremendously. However, I'm worried about his lack of "stuff". Chacin can some times get away with it because he's a lefty. You won't find too many RHP who can't touch 90 on the gun that have long careers, unless their secondary stuff is GREAT.

Agreed; it's more difficult to be a command pitcher than a power pitcher, no disagreement from me there.

If you gave me a choice, I'd definitely take Litsch long-term, but unless he adds a couple of MPH on his fastball, both of them look like #5 starters going forward. Although at this point, I think Chacin's ideal role is in the pen.

I don't think Litsch has to be much more than a 4th or 5th starter for us, I'm comfortable with that assessment.

And in the other thread, I also mentioned Chacin in the context of a relief role, so we're agreed there as well.

[SmallTownJournalist303]

I disagree; there's no sense in projecting that his ERA will balloon much even if he IS giving up a homer a game. He's still inducing a lot of ground balls and infield flies, considerably more than home runs. And he's still striking out SOME batters.

That projection doesn't follow. If he gives up the longball, yes, he'll have some nights that are rough on him (multiple RBI homers, for example) but again, you're looking at a guy who hasn't fully established his pitching repetoire.

He's already a decent command pitcher and his slider and curve are works-in-progress. If you're gonna project one way, I'll project the other; I'd expect his ERA to at least balance out once he figures out those two pitches.

A pitcher with Marcum's HR/9 isn't going to be a consistently solid starter.
The three major pitching stats (K/9, BB/9, and HR/9) have a direct correlation to other; if a pitcher has an extreme deficiency in one area than they need to be supremely good in the other two. Carlos Silva's 2005 is a good example; he had a ridiculously low K/9, but since he barely walked anybody and didn't give up many home runs he was still able to be effective.
Because Marcum has such a problem keeping the ball in the park (nearing 40 HRs p/ 200 innings is a serious, serious problem), he'll have to one of two things:

1. Improve his K/9 and BB/9 to mitigate the damage of the HR/9.
2. Improve his HR/9 by inducing more groundballs.

While his other ratios are good, they're nowhere near being able to make up for giving up 40 home runs in a season. In this way, I think his best bet to becoming a good starter is option #2.
I guess a lot of this depends on your expectations of Marcum. In his current state he's a back-end of the rotation guy who'll be good some nights but over the course of an entire season has as much of a chance of putting up a 6.00 ERA as a 4.00. If improves in either of the two ways I mentioned, then he suddenly becomes an awesome third starter.

[tsherkin]

<snip meaty analysis>

1. Improve his K/9 and BB/9 to mitigate the damage of the HR/9.
2. Improve his HR/9 by inducing more groundballs.

It's a decent point, no doubt, but I wouldn't look to him improving his K/9 ratio and I don't want him challenging batters with his fastball too much because he isn't Nolan Ryan.

While his other ratios are good, they're nowhere near being able to make up for giving up 40 home runs in a season. In this way, I think his best bet to becoming a good starter is option #2.

I agree completely here, I don't see him being a terribly effective strikeout pitcher and he's already a pretty decent groundball pitcher and will only improve as he continues to work on his off-speed pitches.

I guess a lot of this depends on your expectations of Marcum. In his current state he's a back-end of the rotation guy who'll be good some nights but over the course of an entire season has as much of a chance of putting up a 6.00 ERA as a 4.00.

I don't agree with that at all; I can see him getting roughed up now and again but that happens to Cy Young-caliber pitchers, too. Every single pitcher eventually has some bad nights. Prime-time Greg Maddux, Nolan Ryan, Roger Clemens, Randy Johnson, Bob Gibson... the best of the best have them, and so will Marcum.

I do not agree that he will be consistently hit up for homers enough so to make his overall performance less valuable. 40 homeruns in a season against 32 starts may not be a flattering number but even if you put that average at 2 RBI/HR, it's still not so overwhelmingly troublesome to overcome as a pitcher.

If improves in either of the two ways I mentioned, then he suddenly becomes an awesome third starter.

Agreed.

[SmallTownJournalist303]

Thirty home runs allowed over 200 innings is poor; forty is just untennable. When you give up that many home runs it means you're going to be prone to big innings. That's why I made the comment about him having the potential to put up a 6.00 ERA throughout a season, because if he has a season we're he's unlucky with BABIP then those big innings will happen more frequently.
The best example I could use would be Eric Milton.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/miltoer01.php

Milton's always had above average K/9 and BB/9 ratios, but his achilles heel has always been his HR/9. He's averaged roughly 40 home runs per 200 innings, much like Marcum. If you look over his career, he's alternated between good years (ERA in the mid fours) and poor years (ERA 5+) including one absolutely terrible year (6.47 ERA). That's how pitchers like Marcum fare; may put up an ERA in the mid fours, but also has the potential to absolutely blow up in your face depending on how lucky he is.
I'm not saying he won't improve because he think he has the potential to, I'm just saying this is how things are as he stands now.

[tsherkin]

I'm not saying he won't improve because he think he has the potential to, I'm just saying this is how things are as he stands now.

I still don't particularly agree, certainly without a stronger base of evidence. Yes, it's true that the metrics are linked and are generally good indicators of performance. His HR/9 as a starter remains ugly this year but consider that this is his second year as a starter.

Halladay didn't have a flattering HR/9 value in his first full year in the Majors either (1.15/9), nor in his second year (1.86/9) but he improved dramatically thereafter.

Mind I'm not saying Marcum will be as good as Halladay but the point was this: Halladay came in as a flamethrower who had little movement and left his pitches up a lot. His HR/9 value was less than good and his 2000 ERA was a rather disgusting value over 10 in about as many starts as Marcum's had this year.

But he managed to alter his pitching style, change the grip on his cutter so he could throw it more, add a changeup, work on his control, etc.

Marcum's already pretty comfortable with his fastball (which has high-80s to very low 90s punch) and changeup (his two go-to pitches for the longest time)... and the beginnings of a curve and a slider.

I'm fairly confident that he WILL improve both those pitches (and his slider's really starting to come along). If he ever figures the curve out even a little bit (and stops just quitting on the pitch when it isn't working, the way McGowan does a lot), his groundball percentage will go up and his HR/9 will go down. I can see him turning into a pretty good groundball pitcher.

[SmallTownJournalist303]

What have been his GB%s throughout his career in the minors? I don't have the stats in front of me so I can't say for sure, but I seem to remember them hovering just above or just below 40%, which is fairly poor. Moreso than K-rates and BB-rates, home run problems tend to be chronic in many cases. This isn't to say he can't improve them, but he's not suddenly going to make that issue disappear; in my opinion, best case scenario would be him becoming average at keeping the ball in the park.
Your Roy Halladay example doesn't hold water. Aside from that one year, he never had problems with home runs; even in his first season his issues weren't nearly as pronounced as Marcum's.