the one thing i've learned from watching baseball is that no two paths to success are the same. mark prior was a great college pitcher and a top prospect in the cubs minor leagues. when he first came up he was truly amazing and people could imagine him winning multiple cy young awards. now it's hard to imagine that he'll even come back to win multiple games. jaime moyer didn't find true success until he was in his thirties and even though he stinks at age 45, his numbers are still probably better than the mike pelfrey's.
the point is that you never know where you're going to strike gold and more importantly, when. mike pelfrey was the mets first round draft pick about three years ago. he was picked number 9 overall, but was widely considered the best pitcher in the draft after establishing himself as a great college pitcher at wichita state. he was even considered as the 1st pick overall but was deemed too expensive to sign as a scott boras client.
in his first full season as a pro, pelfrey rose up the ranks quickly posting very impressive numbers (including era, ks and whip). however, as soon as he reached the major league club, he consistently posted numbers in the high 5's in era and his strikeout rate dropped by probably around 33%. He would be sent back and forth between the mets and triple a for the last couple of years, always putting up decent numbers in the minors but terrible numbers in the minors.
to make it worse, he wasn't even putting up incredible numbers in the minors anymore and his strikeout rate considerably dropped there as well.
the question is then obvious: why would i continue to be a mike pelfrey fan. mike pelfrey obviously has skill or at least once had skill, relative to his age and peer group. has he suddenly lost his skill? probably not. but what worked in the low level minors is not as productive when facing the best hitters in the world.
his arsenal consists of a four seamer, a sinker, a changeup, and a slider. he used to have a curve-ball that was scratched due to the organizational philosophy that favors sliders and changeups. his four seamer is marked at 93-95 and his 90 mpg sinker has good late movement. his changeup doesn't have much movement and certainly does not change things up much as it's usually marked at 85. his slider is wildly ineffective and leads to past balls and wild pitches. his achilles heel if you were to pick one is his inability to throw an out pitch to a left handed bat. his sinker drifts to the middle of the plate and he has little accuracy inside to lefties. and with inconsistent command and control, he's certainly a work in progress.
so we go back to the question at hand: why are you still a mike pelfrey fan? i'm a fan b/c of everything i just mentioned.... his fastball has life, his sinker has movement, his slider is new and developing and his changeup is capable of neutralizing lefties if he's able to spot it on the outside corner with some regularity. the problem is that it's hard to find pelfrey on a day where all these things are working in unison (somewhat like the problem that faces the mets in general).
stuff is like height in basketball or speed in football, it's a talent in itself. mike pelfrey is 6'7" and his mechanics are always a struggle for him. i was once told that taller pitchers take a longer time to get their mechanics in order, to the point that it becomes easily repeatable (same arm slot). i was also told that the sinker is the best pitch in baseball, in terms of effectiveness, limiting home runs, keeping pitch counts low, getting double plays, and in injuries to arms). pelfrey is still only 24 years old and he is only two years removed from being one of baseball america's top 20 prospects in the game.
he's shown brilliance at times and you have to think that as he matures, his bad outings will decrease and he'll learn to become more effective even when his stuff isn't there. or maybe i'm just biased.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
hunts versus heinz
i don't know what ketchup consists of, but i do know one thing.... hunt's sucks and heinz is awesome. and if a restaurant serves hunt's instead of heinz i am certain that it's a second rate restaurant. i don't ANYONE who likes hunt's more than heinz. if you're that SOMEONE, please contact me so we can discuss.
thinking out loud
i recently read an article tackling the issue of our environmental future.... if we are to have one. even the greatest skeptics will have to admit now that global warming is at least somewhat due to human activity. the question remains, however, "How are we to deal with this issue?"
two prominent ideas are the cap 'n trade system and the carbon tax. the cap n trade system would cap the amount of carbon licensed companies are allowed to collectively produce and put into the atmosphere. then permits would be created that companies can purchase at a price set by the a new market allowing these companies to then emit carbon. permit prices are volatile as are any other prices determined by free markets. however, since we can regulate the cap on carbon emissions we are able to predict the effect it would have on the environment. the carbon tax can not determine with the same accuracy the level of carbon that will be emitted. the carbon tax simply taxes companies for the amount of carbon they emit. taxes are deemed to be largely inefficient, say economists, but require much less regulation than the cap n trade system, which would require the creation of an entire new market (and a department to oversee it; like any other market - stock market). carbon taxes can also be controlled by the government unlike the cap n trade system and thus the prices would be more predictable.
arguments go both ways on this topic, but it's important to realize the goal here and that's to save our environment and ultimately ourselves.
if we are to do that, however, we will need to gather complete international support and there in lies even more problems. for developing nations such as China and India and even Africa, what opportunities are they losing by considering their effect on the environment? the u.s. and europe are for the most part developed and could sustain themselves while producing less carbon. but for those countries that have yet to "modernize" or "industrialize", should they be allowed to emit more carbon relative to the west in order to catch up economically? will the u.s. allow even such a thought?
it's a similar argument that comes up when talking about nuclear weapons. why should the u.s. and russia control most of the nukes. what right do we have to tell other countries not to make them when we already have them. disarmament is one thing, but holding someone back is another. it's easy for us to say that other countries shouldn't create weapons or destroy the environment when we've already achieved all these things. this is not to say that we should allow them to create nukes and pollute the earth, but that power struggles are inevitable.
i have no point really, i'm just thinking out loud.
two prominent ideas are the cap 'n trade system and the carbon tax. the cap n trade system would cap the amount of carbon licensed companies are allowed to collectively produce and put into the atmosphere. then permits would be created that companies can purchase at a price set by the a new market allowing these companies to then emit carbon. permit prices are volatile as are any other prices determined by free markets. however, since we can regulate the cap on carbon emissions we are able to predict the effect it would have on the environment. the carbon tax can not determine with the same accuracy the level of carbon that will be emitted. the carbon tax simply taxes companies for the amount of carbon they emit. taxes are deemed to be largely inefficient, say economists, but require much less regulation than the cap n trade system, which would require the creation of an entire new market (and a department to oversee it; like any other market - stock market). carbon taxes can also be controlled by the government unlike the cap n trade system and thus the prices would be more predictable.
arguments go both ways on this topic, but it's important to realize the goal here and that's to save our environment and ultimately ourselves.
if we are to do that, however, we will need to gather complete international support and there in lies even more problems. for developing nations such as China and India and even Africa, what opportunities are they losing by considering their effect on the environment? the u.s. and europe are for the most part developed and could sustain themselves while producing less carbon. but for those countries that have yet to "modernize" or "industrialize", should they be allowed to emit more carbon relative to the west in order to catch up economically? will the u.s. allow even such a thought?
it's a similar argument that comes up when talking about nuclear weapons. why should the u.s. and russia control most of the nukes. what right do we have to tell other countries not to make them when we already have them. disarmament is one thing, but holding someone back is another. it's easy for us to say that other countries shouldn't create weapons or destroy the environment when we've already achieved all these things. this is not to say that we should allow them to create nukes and pollute the earth, but that power struggles are inevitable.
i have no point really, i'm just thinking out loud.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
