Add new comment

Three Career minor league lines:
4.38-ERA; 6.6-K/9; 2.1-BB/9; 0.8-HR/9  (421 IP)
3.96-ERA; 6.7-K/9; 2.7-BB/9; 0.8-HR/9 (1225 IP)
3.73-ERA; 5.3-K/9; 1.5-BB/9; 0.7-HR/9 (546 IP)
Many statheads will glance at that and zero in on the K rates.  One guy is clearly underwhelming.  The ERA will get shrugged off - (ERA is only useful if it confirms a given position - not if it contradicts it).
The top line is Doug Fister.  I was never high on Fister because he ran double digit Hits/9 numbers throughout his minor league career, his total upon depature was 10.3.  I was convinced he was simply too easy to hit - and that his HR/9 would balloon (as would his ERA when the competition got tougher).  Still waiting - but without any real hope.  This is a blown call on my part.  Way to do Doc.
The second line is Pauley.  He ran a nearly identical line to Fister, except his H/9 was a full hit LESS than Fister, (9.4).  He walked a half guy more, but gave up a hit less.  Of course, Pauley was still in AAA at age 27, while Fister managed to gain escape velocity at age 25.
The third line, (the one with the best ERA and best walk rate - by a wide margin) is Blake Beaven.  He turns 23 this year.
The thing is, that walk rate isn't simply good.  It's insanely good.  His HR/9 is a smidge BETTER than Fister and Pauley.  Where this is leading is that when you've got a kid fanning 8 guys a game, it's easy to jump on the bandwagon.  But, any low-K guy (and for that, I mean K rate below 7 in the MINORS), it's very easy to dismiss them as nothing special.
In 2011 before the season Pauley was viewed as a meh arm in a pen where the strengths would be: Lueke and Wilhelmsen  (oops).  I don't get to see these guys - so I rely on guys like Doc to fill in the blanks.  But, when a guy goes off the charts, (and a 1.5 walk rate is off the charts), he's in unfamiliar waters.  He doesn't comp well with anyone.  The data pool is too shallow.
But ... if you're able to run a 1.5 walk rate AND a 0.7 HR rate, you must be doing "something" right.  I believe that combo of walk and HR rates screams a phenomenal ability to repeat motion.  That in my mind says this is a kid who has the 'potential' to learn new pitches signicantly beyond that of your average prospect.  To me, Beaven is a kid who could suddenly jump up, add a new pitch, and kick that K rate up over 6 and suddenly you have another Vargas in the rotation. 
Not saying this will happen.  Saying it "can" happen.  He could also be another Kirk Saarloos, a kid with great control, but never quite able to find that out pitch.  But Beaven was the 17th overall selection int the 2007 draft.  Clearly the scouts saw something special.  To me, the thing missed about a guy like Beaven is that because of the low K rate, the tendency is to dismiss the possibility of improvement.  While a guy with a 10 K rate who walks 6 guys a game will immediately be viewed as someone who could be special if they can just get the walk rate down a bit.  I think there is a logical fallacy here.  Lack of control calls into question inate repeatability.  That should make a guy LESS coachable and maleable.
I think the biases of high-K pitchers continue to play a large role in just which pitchers get a 'scholarship' -- an actual shot.  I believe the guys with the low walk rates have a greater chance of learning a new pitch and mastering it.  I think they also have greater leeway in regards to learning how to selectively walk opponents, (walk Pujols ... challenge Figgins). 
In the end, I think the HR rate (which is the proxy for how hard a pitcher gets hit) will be the determining factor for how Beaven does.  Just as I viewed Carp as a hitter capable of adaptation, I think Beaven is a pitcher with the same maleability.  I also believe it would be wise for the analysts, scouts and pundits to reduce their fixation on the K-rate as the primary TTO result for pitcher prospects.