Add new comment

Is Ian Kennedy a good comp for Beaven?
The numers say:
Kennedy minor league stats: 0.4-HR; 2.8-BB; 9.9-K -- 3.55-K/BB (248 IP)
B.Beaven minor league stat: 0.7-HR; 1.5-BB; 5.2-K -- 3.41-K/BB (584 IP)
From their stats, they aren't in the same hemisphere. Kennedy struggled in his first couple of flashes, 26-BB and 27-K in 39-IP in his 9 2008 starts. (ouch!) But at 25, he was already fanning 8 guys a game, (okay, 7.8) ... but Kennedy always had stuff ... he had to "learn" control, (he was originally a 3 walk per game guy in the minors -- he just "became" a 2.2 and then 1.7 BB/9 guy in the majors).
Fister, however ... there's a great comp. A control artist from day one, that "learned" how to miss bats since reaching the majors. Make no mistake. THAT is the much harder route. Guys who throw 98 are much more "capable" of backing off and gaining control than guys with 5-K minors walk rates are capable of pushing that up toward 7 after making the bigs.
This is not to say Beaven "might" not be for real.
My position is unchanged. Prospects do not improve by getting older. They improve by fixing SOMETHING. I, being a Maddux fan, have always had a personal bias toward the cerebral "pitcher" over the athletic "thrower". I actually like the Moyer, Vargas, Washburn kind of pitcher more than the Morrow type guys with so much more talent and so much less upstairs.
So, let me make this perfectly clear. I think Doc's comp of Ian Kennedy is (and sorry for the language), utterly ridiculous.
The comp Doc SHOULD have used is ...
Greg Maddux. minor league: 0.3; 2.7; 5.7
Maddux didn't break the 6-K barrier until almost a thousand innings into his MLB career. Of course, Maddux managed a 1.0; 4.3; 5.8 line as a rookie, with the accordingly awful 5.61 ERA in 155 innings.
The defining characteristic (for me) in all of the truly great players remains ... can they LEARN? Obviously, if you start with talent AND learn, you become great.
So, I'm suitably impressed by the return of Beavan. But it's way too early to assume he'll be this new guy "consistently". Remember, Vargas goes through bad spells. Heck, even Felix goes through bad spells. And much of the final picture for any SP is what is the ratio of the good days from the bad. Phil Humber can throw a no hitter on a given day. That alone does not mean he is a good pitcher. How bad are the bad days, and more important - how frequently do they come?
I watched Glavine stink for a full year.
I know Maddux stank for a full year.
The key point with both was a willingness to learn, and a refusal to let a year of bad results defeat them. Most MLB players were the best at every level. The pitchers are ALL used to going 25-3 against inferior competition. How they react, when they're going 7-17 with Boeing ERAs (7.07; 7.47; 7.57) ... is key to reading their future.
Ian Snell had "stuff". He didn't have the head to handle adversity and adapt once his stuff wasn't enough. Beavan seems to have embraced his 2012 struggles and come out the other side better for it. He appears to be doing exactly what I said it was possible for Noesi to do. It's still possible for Noesi to come around, of course. But, once a player shows the SKILL of "learning", he is (IMO) a much better prospect for finding a way to stick around.