Terminology to me is always a strange thing.
Hall-of-Famer: Potential to get into the HOF if everything works out right
#1 starter: Could be the opening day starter for a team without a HOF starter
#2 starter: Could be the opening day starter for a team without either of the above, not as consistent or as high a top-end, but still a TOR guy.
#3 starter: Good, but held back from TOR status either by lack of stuff or lack of control
#4-5 starter: BOR arms that can "eat innings" with a semi-decent ERA, but can't consistently dominate.
#6 starter: Emergency #4-5 starter due to injury.
I don't see why that's hard, but everybody has their own scale. But with pitchers far moreso than hitters, I find it amusing.
What's funny is there are pitchers who can climb all those ranks. Jamie Moyer was as low as #6 and climbed as high as #1. He was ranked top-20 in pitcher WAR on multiple occasions during the steroid era - if that's not a #1 pitcher, I'm not sure what is. He would have been perfect behind a HOFer like Randy or Felix, but failing that, there was no shame in letting him pitch on Opening Day for you in several years of his career.
But when he was a #6, would you have guessed that? "That dude with the 86 mph fastball and the ginormous ERA is a #1?" I don't think so. It's rarer for a hitter to pull a Jose Bautista and climb from benchie all the way to #1 bat in a lineup (or all of baseball), but pitchers do it all the time. Bell curves vs. plateaus.
Being a great pitcher is more than having a great arm. Luke Hochevar has a great arm, but is NOT a great pitcher. Cliff Lee does not have a great arm, but is a MONSTER pitcher.
I love Campos, but the reason I think he can be a #1 is not that he has an arm that can light up a radar gun. It's that his head is screwed on straight, he's coachable but has innate talent, has tremendous command of the heat as well as having the heat in the first place, and has loads of time to work on other offerings that are less polished.
The interesting thing about command is that there aren't a lot of fastball-command pitchers who can't get their other pitches over for strikes. One of the reasons I really like plus fastballs with command is that it bodes well for the rest of their arsenal. There ARE Sorianos out there who can't get good enough secondary weapons to stay in the rotation, but a well-controlled, plus fastball will get you VERY far in this game. Ask Brandon League how it's working out.
So in THAT sense I do understand the grading system regarding "#1" and "#5": A #1 with a great heater (and has any pitcher in the history of earth been graded as a potential #1 without great heat? Weaver wasn't...) has the downside of failing with all his breaking offerings and still being a BOR guy or a great bullpenner. A #4 who's getting by on guile is nothing if his guile ever fails him, but could move up to being a #1 if his guile and non-fastball offerings are plus.
Easier to bet on the horse who still has something to offer the team even if things don't work out.
So in that sense, be happy! Campos has a live arm with great control, and his healthy floor is that of a remarkably useful player.
Enjoy that eased burden...and watch his upside.
~G
.......
Q. What is the common usage of this term?
A. Bill Bavasi - a smart guy, and a victim of circumstances here - once said "There are only 3-4 true number one starters in baseball."
There are more than that many Hall of Fame starters right now. So apparently this term has exceeded "HOF'er" in baseball veneration.
Bill meant that he wanted legendary performance from his Opening Day starter -- Bob Gibson, Sandy Koufax performance. That's not what SSI means by "number one starter," though.
.
Q. What would be the fair usage of the term?
A. When people say that Campos could be a number two, they give up their own game. ;- )
Number two what? Number two on his own staff. Opening Day is Monday, Campos starts Tuesday.
A "number one", logically, is a legitimate Opening Day starter. Texas is glad to have C.J. Wilson going on Opening Day. Wilson is a number one. Then your number two goes the next day.
But, fine, if you want to use "Number One Starter" to mean "300-Game Winner," then okay. The term applies to nobody in baseball, other than to Felix Hernandez. He's the only pitcher under 30 who will probably do that.
Campos isn't a number one and neither is any other minor league pitcher, including Montgomery, Moore, Paxton or anybody else.
.
Q. What do the scouts mean by number one, really?
A. I imagine they're talking about super-electric stuff .... Nolan Ryan, J.R. Richard, Sandy Koufax.
They'd talk about Clayton Kershaw as a potential number one, Stephen Strasburg ... Taijuan Walker next year.
***
Problem is, actual #1's in the major leagues don't always have 97-mph fastballs and Nintendo breaking balls. Does Cliff Lee? Jered Weaver? Dan Haren? Roy Halladay? Cole Hamels?
True, there are a handful of Cy Young aces right now who do have crackling stuff. Verlander, Felix, Lincecum, Price, Kershaw, and maybe Sabathia.
Bill Bavasi, and most scouts, idealize a pitcher who wins the Triple Crown (W, ERA, K) and that's a "true number one."
It's not logical, and it's not the real American League. But I know what they mean. They see Taijuan Walker and they go, "There's a guy who could lead the league in K's and ERA."
Fine.
***
Sometimes we're just arguing semantics. :- ) Ask a scout, "Could Michael Pineda pitch a great couple innings in the 2012 All-Star Game," and he'll smile. Pineda's been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
Ask him, "Could Pineda finish #3 in the Cy?", and he'll say sure. Ask him, "Could Pineda win 17, and lead the league in strikeouts?" and he'll go, yeah, of course.
Ask him, "Is Pineda a #1 starter?," and he'll prefer to say no -- that term is reserved for first-ballot HOF'ers.
But we all agree on what Michael Pineda is. The use of the term "#1 Starter" takes the discussion backwards, not forwards. I wish they would stop using it.
.
Q. Is Campos' ceiling that of a #1 starter?
A. It is, yes. Even using the scouts' typical use of the term -- "Electric pitcher who could easily lead MLB in strikeouts and ERA."
As mentioned before, Campos throwing 91-95 touching 98, at the age of eighteen. That projects to a very possible, even probable, 94-98 at the age of 21.
Campos' ceiling is that of a #1 starter, but then you knew that, because Pedro Grifol tolja that already.
.
Q. M's power rankings?
A. If there's an expansion draft, I protect the M's minor leaguers in this order:
1. James Paxton
2. Danny Hultzen
3. Taijuan Walker (if he and Hultzen were the same age, though... )
4. Jose Vicente Campos
But each and every one of those four pitchers has to be on BA's top 100 list next year.
.
Rock 'n roll,
Dr D
Comments
The interesting thing about command is that there aren't a lot of fastball-command pitchers who can't get their other pitches over for strikes.
That's a point worth considering. If that be true, do you project Blake Beavan to develop a Ryan Franklin arsenal and to improve over the next few years?
One time James said that talented rookie pitchers tend to raise their strikeout rates in years 2 and 3. I wonder if this is what he was talking about...
Or he won't be in the bigs.
The problem is, he's already in the zone with his other pitches - they're just not any good.
Franklin has half-a-dozen workable pitches, and as one of them starts to go bad on him he just switches to another.
Beavan might THROW four pitches, but everything that isn't a FB gets crushed.
Franklin is a Swiss Army knife that keeps opposing batters guessing as to what's coming out on any given day.
Beavan is a 4 cylinder engine with one working piston. Sooner or later that last piston is gonna give out and the engine's gonna die.
It's not his command that's the issue - Beavan's command is fine.
It's his stuff that sucks, and I don't have a cure for that. Maybe the bullpen, as was suggested elsewhere. See if he can throw his one pitch, the fastball, even faster and better, and use whichever of his 3 other pitches is working that day as an alternate pitch.
It's worth a shot - but his long-term chances are grim unless he can get more value out of his other pitches.
~G
Last regular-season start, though a playoff series is possible.
Thanks for the great analysis, Doc. The next Pineda? Hmmmm... :-)
These semantics smack of a defensive, can't-afford-to-be-wrong tone that too many SABR dudes are guilty of. They don't want to put their neck out and say that someone is going to be really good because the embarassment of being wrong is more painful than the glory of being right.
These same people will never predict the next Wade Boggs or Sandy Koufax because to them nobody is good enough, or good enough to risk their reputation on.
I, for one, think Dustin Ackley could be one of the next great hitters. I feel that intuitively, from an amalgamation of stats, scouting and having watched the game closely for my whole life. This wouldn't be good enough for many people and I understand that, until those same people realize that their interpretation of the 'facts' that are known as statistics is just as intuitive as my methods. Intuition is all we have to work with when looking at an engine with so many moving parts.
The fact that a SABR only dweeb can't put an exact number or formula on to something means there is a risk there, one that cannot be explained away and one their not willing to take.
End of rant. =]
When Beavan entered professional baseball he came in with a bit of an attitude. He had been a big fish in a smallish pond and was used to being the best pitcher wherever he went. Once he became a professional he lost something rather more important than some velocity on his fastball. He lost his attitude.
Ryan Franklin, with all of his failures and disappointments maintained his attitude of being better than the batters he faced. This was something rather key to him going on to have a rather successful MLB career. Franklin DID have the annoying behavior of blaming everything else but himself at times.
Beavan on the otherhand was humbled by his early failures and never regained his presence. Without his high belief in self he couldn't transition his stuff from teen phenom to professional baseball player.
Beavan would be very lucky if he were to be able to go on and have a Franklinesque career.
Lonnie
Last March when I went to ST it was Jose Campos who was the most impressive pitcher there. I wasn't the only one who was impressed either. Here's a little excerpt from one of my days down there:
"You should have seen Jose Campos! That kid was unleashing some wicked stuff! I was standing by the dugout as the batters returned from the plate and I could hear them talking. Danny Carroll was the first batter to face him and he walked back after striking out shaking his head and told his team mates what he saw. He said that Campos fastball tailed into him about 5 inches, and came in at 99 mph."
Mariner Cental ST post
Lonnie
Equates under-grading with objectivity. "Hey, I just don't like to throw around big grades." Blech.
If a kid is Michael Pineda or James Paxton, then tell people that. If he's Anthony Vasquez or Blake Beavan, tell 'em that too.
Jose Vicente Campos is everything you could dream of -- saber and scouting both -- from a teenage pitcher. That is what it is. Teenage pitching pheenoms are what they are.
****
You know who doesn't seem to be encumbered by the "Nobody's a #1" convention? ... Pedro Grifol. I love the guy.
****
Thanks Tim.
Is that you don't put your own best calls on the marquee, like the rest of us do ;- )
***
Campos last night threw a blizzard of ground balls, a few of which got through their low-minors infield. The first time in two months that Campos hadn't run an 8/1 type control line.
***
In this particular case, with Campos throwing a strike every single pitch, I would NOT necessarily pick him to blow away the minors in early 2012, as we did James Paxton. Campos' game may or may not need some adjustments as he climbs the ladder.
Paxton, Kershaw, Lincecum that's a different thing. The adjustments are the hitters' responsibility :- )