Kyle Zimmer, RHP, USF - SSI pre-draft $0.02

 ..........................................

=== What's Lame About 'Im ===

There really isn't much.  Whatever you throw in this canning jar, I can ink "QUIBBLES" onto the lid real quick.

.

Zimmer is very early in his career, so like we say, there are some naive things in his delivery, as there are in Taijuan's.  You could say that he doesn't connect his shoulderline with the center fielder like Appel does.  I'm not wild about the "trueness" of Zimmer's head down the CL and he doesn't get very dynamic acceleration of the belt buckle.  These things are also true of Taijuan Walker.

.

One of the "knocks" on Zimmer, as it relates to being a 1-1 pick, is the idea that he doesn't profile as a Cy Young award winner.  There's the dreaded #2 starter label.  Siiiiggggghhhhhhh ... sometimes Dr. D sort of vibrates-resets in his chair while typing this stuff, like a holographic decoy in a Total Recall remake.  Danny Hultzen of course was downgraded last year for precisely this (stupid) reason.

....

I actually agree that Zimmer gives a vibe like he's going to max out at Jordan Zimmerman, Matt Garza, Gil Meche, Daniel Hudson level.  Those being other 94-MPH right hand pitchers who can throw as many different kinds of breaking balls as they feel like.  This kind of pitcher -- the 4-pitch guy with a good fastball -- frequently does settle in as a #2 type.

You know what, there have been studies showing that men react more alertly to CGI'ed and cartoon women who have such ridiculous curves, actually non-human curves, that they biologically would be poor candidates for breeding - waists too small to support a high number of children, etc.  Psychologists puzzled a long time as to why men would biologically respond so well to female archetypes that were, after all, null matches for them.  A woman with a 16-inch waist wouldn't be able to mother children well, but men respond.  (The same is true with genders reversed.)  What's going on?  

Finally they decided what was going on:  with these distorted figures, men can process at a glance, very frictionlessly, that they're looking at women.  This triggers a primal, not intellectual response.  Or so they say .... as you know, there's a parable coming.  :- )  Buy it or don't.

Scouts, along with us baseball 'net rats, can process very frictionlessly that Justin Verlander could be a #1 starter.  If a pitcher has some weapon that is simple and fast to understand - Verlander's 100 MPH fastball, or Clayton Kershaw's twin thunderbolt pitches, or whatnot, there you go.  #1 starter, right?  

We forget that half of the Cy Young candidates in baseball right now -- Jered Weaver, Cliff Lee, Dan Haren, etc etc -- are not easy to process as #1 pitchers.

............

Which is all beside the point as it relates to an ammy draft pick.  If you could draft a #2 starter, a TOR Matt Garza on Monday, um, well.

.

=== Dr. D's Vibe ===

If Jack Zduriencik and Tom McNamara agree that Zimmer is this year's Hultzen, I'm going to cosign, with gusto.  

For some reason fans seem to be more lackluster about Zimmer than the pros are; having had a chance to check Zimmer out this week I've got to take the pros' side of it.  Here's a funny article that gives the sense of it.  An NL scout whose team has a top-6 pick is blown away by Zimmer and "guarantees" that they're taking him if he's there.  Hm.  The Astros pick first, then four AL teams, and then the Cubs.  Is this an SAT question?

My guilty pleasure in this draft is Kevin Glausman, but not far behind him would be Zimmer.  Get a room, guys, a war room (any of you college kids get the reference?), and bring us back a Hultzen-level nab.

.

My $0.02,

Jeff

 

Comments

1

It goes Gausman, Zimmer, Appel for me among the college arms, and only the top 2 count.
He's not Hultzen, and I wasn't ecstatic for Danny last year (Rendon-hangover and not the best pitcher on the board for me). He's not Bauer. He's not Bundy.
But he's good, and if we feel we must draft another arm then Zimmer or Gausman would be acceptable choices. Still, "Woo! We drafted the fourth or fifth best pitcher in our own system!" isn't really a rallying cry. I don't think any of this year's college pitchers go top-7 last year. Cole, Hultzen, Bauer, and Bundy would all have been rated higher, Bubba crushes Buxton in a competition of raw, toolsy prospects, Rendon is far and away more talented than any college hitter in this draft, and Archie Bradley wasn't nobody.
Giolito is the only arm in this draft I believe would have made that top-7 leap, so I'm leery of getting too googly-eyed over the arms simply because they're the best we're looking at this year.
Zimmer is good, and could always be great, as you say. I am in favor of his talent. But we're not stealing anybody if they "fall" to us, we're just adding another good arm.
~G

2
Lonnie of MC's picture

...(imagine that!) about Kyle Zimmer and what I've been told is that he has pretty much reached his potential right now. I don't know why scouts would say that, but that is what I've heard. Considering that the level of competition that Zimmer has faced is equivalent to Low-A Clinton, I get kind of quesy with the thought of taking Zimmer with the #3 pick.
If the Mariners *have* to take a pitcher with the #3 pick I hope that it would be Giolito.
Lonnie

3
GLS's picture

Who really knows anyway? Players outperform and underperform their talent all the time. Once a guy reaches a certain talent level, it's all between the ears how far he runs with it. That's the REAL trick in talent evaluation, getting a sense of what drives a player, what makes him get up in the morning, how competitive he is, and how coachable and open to feedback he is. I always heard it said that Michael Jordan wasn't the most talented player, but he had an engine inside that drove him and made him insanely competitive.
All this nonsense about guys like Danny Hultzen topping out at number 2 or number 3 starter level is just that, nonsense. It's stupid.

4

It goes Gausman, Zimmer, Appel for me among the college arms, and only the top 2 count.

Not that I'm countering you, of course (considering my own opinions) but what would be your response to somebody who said "anything Zimmer can do, Appel can do better"?
 

5

Appreciate your passing along the judgments you've heard ... any idea whatsoever, what possible sense that could make --- > that a 2nd-year pitcher has reached his potential?
Why would somebody say that?  Obviously any 2nd-year pitcher can improve his release point and command.  And what is the reason for saying that Zimmer can't build arm strength?  He's building stamina as we type.
I like nonconventional opinions.  This one is parallel universe :- ) so I hope there's substance behind it.
..................
[180 degrees] Supposing that Zimmer has reached his potential.  He's 92-96 MPH with a big overhand curve and several other pitches, getting called "TOR stuff right now."  Wouldn't these pitches do?

6

 

Still, "Woo! We drafted the fourth or fifth best pitcher in our own system!" isn't really a rallying cry. I don't think any of this year's college pitchers go top-7 last year ...  I'm leery of getting too googly-eyed over the arms simply because they're the best we're looking at this year.

Would say you've made the argument about as well as it can be made, the idea that none of these guys is a legit 1-1 pick so this would be a rare year to roll the dice on upside.
It's interesting; Tom McNamara is talking like he's high on the top 5-6.  Your thoughts on McNamara's opinion there?

7

Nobody knows whether Jered Weaver or Dan Haren are limited in their futures.  It really is just a way to say "I'm not all that excited about Kyle Zimmer."  As far as predicting whether Danny Hultzen will ever get Cy votes, right, they don't have a pre-draft handle on that really.
Good stuff GLS.

8

FIP? Appel's worse. BABIP? Appel's luckier. Zimmer strikes out more, walks fewer...
Yes, that's hyperbole, and I still think Appel goes #1, but I'll be very shocked if we're calling this the Appel Draft in 5 years. Maybe he is Verlander and I'm slandering his future greatness by even having this conversation, but I ain't seen it.
*shrugs* And if somebody wanted to insist that Appel is better than Zimmer, I would counter that in no way does that statement make him worth a 1-1 even if true.
Still, I hope the Astros believe he is. They're our AL West rivals in 6 months, so by all means, draft the next Andrew Miller, who 7 years after he was drafted is looking like a mighty fine 7th inning guy in the making, if he can ever get to the bigs.
I think I drank my Appel-flavored Haterade today. I'm not usually this down on him but it's tasting awfully sour today, I gotta say...
~G

9

So to sum up:
- I think it's a matter of public face vs. private thoughts. There's no way you sell your fanbase on building for the future all these years and then undercut that by saying, "Oh, but not in this draft where we have a ridiculously high pick, because this draft sucks." Still selling the future in Mariner-Land, so we need to believe that this class will have an impact for us.
- I think there's plenty of talent in this draft, just not transcendant talent. Scouts and front office people are apparently complaining that this is the worst draft in 20 years for talent (off the record) which I don't believe either - but when all the trees on the lot are 7 to 8 feet tall, and Timmy got a 12 foot tree last year, he's not gonna think it's a good Christmas even if the presents are all great. Not enough majesty in this draft for a lot of people, I guess.
- Since the beginning I've thought that college arms with polish would be over-rated in the era of dead bats (and was one of the reasons I had Hultzen rated under Bauer) and if a pitcher strolls through a lackluster season (like Cole and Appel did at least one of their years with dead bats) then I have further doubts. It's gonna be hard to see a lot about college arms because they won't be challenged until they get to the minors against hitters who can hurt them. I like to know how my pitchers deal with being punched in the face, but it's all shadow-boxing in college right now. If a guy has a legit mallet of a right-cross, fine, but pretty college jabbers aren't my thing since he may have no chin at all.
- which is why I'm very prep-oriented this year. If I could get Dahl to sign for 4 mil instead of 5.2 slot and use the extra to try to buy 3B Thompson out of his Miami commit, I'd absolutely do it. Or pick up Roache, or our own WA catcher Coulter...
In a level draft I want to maximize the chances of adding plus contributors. We'll know soon if Mac is just blowing smoke and he has a couple of upside guys in mind, or if he's thrilled to take whatever falls to him on the average rankings board.
But IMO Walker and Paxton were both "he's got weapons" draft picks, and Hultzen would never have been the guy if he wasn't hitting 96 on the gun with wicked offspeed stuff. I think Appel has velo but not the arsenal it looks like he has.
Giolito would be a weapons pick. But I want a weapons selection or a hardcore-baller, and at #3 we can get one.
So if we pick Appel or Zunino I suppose I'll just hope that Mac is right about the top 5-6 and there are better weapons there than I'm seeing.
~G

10
Taro's picture

Historically college pitchers have by far the worst turnout ratio in the 1st round. Historically college + highschool hitters give you the best bang for your buck. Given that this is a particularly underwhelming years for college pitchers, I'd pass all around. The college hitters aren't much this year either. Agreed that highschool hitting is the way to go this year.
I'm warming up to Correa. Only concern is the aggressiveness.
REALLY big fan of Corey Seager and David Dahl. Part of me wishes we were picking 7th.

11

And that's all right...but I'm with you, it's almost more freeing to draft slightly later and have more options you feel you can look at.
Just need Correa to be the hitter some people think he can be.
~G

12

Would like to take a look at the methodology, the definition of 'turnout,' etc.  
Certainly we're not hurting with Hultzen and Paxton thus far :- ) but that's just a sidelight.
................
Tell me again what you guys like so much about Dahl, other than his being a lefty/speed player for Safeco?

14

- he's an absolute baseball rat, always with his head in the game, a sponge for knowledge
- Outperformed perfectly healthy players for Team USA when he was far less than 100%
- his swing doesn't change - might even be better - with wood bats, and he clubs with authority with em
- not a lot of moving pieces in his swing, looks perfectly patterned after Josh Hamilton's
- it's a lefty swing and so far better suited for the park than the other top-ranked hitters
- his arm is great, so he can play RF if he doesn't stick in center (or share time between a corner and CF, like Hamilton)
- I think he has the defense and speed to stay in center
Concerns:
- slight tweener between CF/RF (again, not a concern I share)
- didn't crush the competition this year
- has nagging injury history (*cough* Hamilton)
~G

15

A study here which references the first study here.  Victor Wang did the heavy lifting.
First-Round Picks:College Hitters: .76 WAB/yearHigh School Hitters: .75 WAB/yearCollege Pitchers: .49 WAB/yearHigh School Pitchers: .35 WAB/year
Supplemental/Second-Round Picks:College Hitters: .20 WAB/yearHigh School Hitters: .14 WAB/yearCollege Pitchers: .18 WAB/yearHigh School Pitchers: .16 WAB/year
Third-Round Picks:College Hitters- .04 WAB/yearHigh School Hitters- .10 WAB/yearCollege Pitchers- .11 WAB/yearHigh School Pitchers- .08 WAB/year

Another reason I hate drafting arms in the first if there are good bats available.  
Rany Jazayerli did yeoman's work a little before that, some of which is slightly (but certainly not wholly) contradicted by the above.  12 articles on BP, but it's his rules that I remember (reprinted all in one place here).
Draft Rule #2: College players are roughly 50% more likely to reach the major leagues than high-school players of equal draft caliber. This advantage has not changed over time.
Draft Rule #3: In a year where there is a clear superstar talent available in the ranks of high school hitters, it is a perfectly acceptable--if not mandatory--draft strategy to select that player with the #1 overall pick.
Draft Rule #4: While college players returned almost exactly double the return on investment that high school players did between 1984 and 1991, that advantage dropped dramatically, to approximately 25%, between 1992 and 1999.

But Victor Wang's work is a little more recent.  I'd like to see it updated every 5 years or so, honestly.
~G

16
Taro's picture

Heres the study I read a couple years ago. Similar data although highschool pitchers came ahead based on data from 1992-1999. It would be interesting to see more recent data.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/analyzing-the-mlb-draft-u...
First Round
College hitters-- 1.336 WAR/year
High School hitters-- 1.204 WAR/year
College pitchers-- .649 WAR/year
High School pitchers-- .878 WAR/year
Unless you have a standout pitcher (Bauer/Bundy type), the odds point in favor of the hitter.
Focusing on the First Round
Here is the WAR/year based on draft position within the first round:
1-10-- 1.417 WAR/year
11-20-- 1.115 WAR/year
21-30-- .353 WAR/year
So 11-20 isn't far off from 1-10. In a year when the 1-10 are weaker than normal, it isn't a bad idead to "reach" for a guy in the 11-20 range if they make sense.
Second Round
College hitters-- .773 WAR/year
High School hitters-- .672 WAR/year
College pitchers-- .087 WAR/year
High School pitchers-- .084 WAR/year
Third Round
College hitters-- .115 WAR/year
High School hitters-- .424 WAR/year
College pitchers-- (.023) WAR/year
High School pitchers-- .058 WAR/year
Position by Position
outfielders (64)-- .977 WAR/year
middle infielders (48)-- .561 WAR/year
corner infielders (41)-- 1.046 WAR/year
catchers (29)-- .829 WAR/year
right-handed pitchers (151)-- .314 WAR/year
left-handed pitchers (55)-- .404 WAR/year
Thats one argument for Seager/Dahl over Correa. MIs tend to have the worst turnout rate in the high rounds.

17

... and I don't have the time this weekend to analyze both... I see where you were coming from Taro, if that's the study you were looking at.  
Wang's findings on HS pitchers are much more in line with what I've observed.  It's open to further discussion, of course.  My impression is that ML orgs, since the internet age, have been much more careful with HS pitchers and yet still have a big ROI lag with them.
..................
Two things surprise me, even without looking further, though:  
(1) MLB draft organizations do one whale of a great job, scouting teenage hitters.  I had no idea that they did that well with teenagers.  Nick Franklin is a local example, and this conversation has me a lot more interested in Dahl than I was after researching him on the (non-SSI) internet :- )  
(2) This chart is very important as it pertains to our conversation right now:

Focusing on the First Round
Here is the WAR/year based on draft position within the first round:
1-10-- 1.417 WAR/year
11-20-- 1.115 WAR/year
21-30-- .353 WAR/year

The drop between 20 and 21 is vast:  the 11-20 players are worth three times (3x) what the late first-rounders are.
You're talking apples and oranges when you're comparing Appel, Zimmer, Buxton, etc to draftwide, or even rounds 1-3, player pools.  I wouldn't let draftwide position tendencies --- > influence my #3 pick much, if at all. 

18

The methodologies used in these kinds of draft studies don't tell us how good different types of players are. Rather, they tell us how well the MLB teams collectively evaluate players. So if a study says that college pitchers have returned less value as a group, it doesn't mean that college pitchers are inherently more risky than other players, but rather that pro scouts aren't grading them properly. That is, they could be safer than other types but teams have still overrated them.
For example, college second baseman most certainly are inferior prospects than most other players. However, scouts know this so it's very rare that they get drafted in the first round, and if they are it's because they are real good. These studies would then say that college 2nd baseman return the same value as other positions, but that does not mean that you should select 2nd baseman as often as shortstops. So if Tom Mcnamara says that THIS college pitcher is worthy of the #3 pick, these studies don't inform of us of whether that is true or not because he should have factored in all of the risks when making the decision.

19
Taro's picture

Ya, when it comes to evaluation of individual players the trends don't really come into play. If Bauer or Bundy is the best player available based on your evaluations, you select that player. Bauer would have been my pick last year regardless of the fact that college pitchers have the worst turnout.
However in a case where the best player available isn't as clear (like this draft), I think the trends can help in aiding decisions. If the assessments are similar between certain players, you may be better off playing the odds.
In the bigger picture, it certainly seems to suggest that a drafting strategy of hitters early (look at rounds 2 and 3) and pitchers late pays off more often than not (if there isn't a standout guy).

Add comment

Filtered HTML

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd><p><br>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

shout_filter

  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <blockquote> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.