Down goes Karstens - Page 5 - Talksox

jacksonianmarch · 03-29-2007, 09:03 AM

Pavano shouldnt touch the ball until the 4th turn, maybe the fifth even with Wang out. But Pettitte needs his last ST start, which makes him unavailable on opening day and Mussina refuses to pitch on short rest. They wont throw Igawa out there on opening day in his first yr, so the only other option is Pavano. It isnt like we lost 4 of our rotation and Pavano is all that is left.

Mr Crunchy · 03-29-2007, 09:08 AM

it isnt like the rotation is all that solid either
whitey ford
ron guidry
roger clemens
randy johnson
and this year.....carl pavano

why wouldnt they hold mussina or petite back??
do they insist on tanking the 1st game or is it a confidence thing with the above mentioned old timers??

jacksonianmarch · 03-29-2007, 09:12 AM

Ah, I see.

He misses Fenway in the 1 hole and gets TB, OAK, BAL, CLE, TB before he undoubtedy get pushed back a day on FOX against the sox when CMW should be back. The 1 hole might be the only chance he has to miss Boston twice.

jacksonianmarch · 03-29-2007, 08:56 PM

forgot Steven Jackson too, who we got from ARI with Ohlendorf and Gonzalez. He is dominating the Jays right now on YES.

jacksonianmarch · 03-30-2007, 10:01 AM

Jackson pitched well last night. 5IP 2ER 5H. I had heard he had a power arm when we dealt for him, but he is a big tall guy throwing low 90s sinkers. The yankees seem to have a new outlook on their pitching. Sinker/curve seems to be the way to go, as they dealt for 3 of them (Sanchez throws a mid 90s 2 seamer which sinks, and Ohlendorf throws a mid 90s hard sinker). CMW changed their perspective a bit.

One Red Seat · 03-30-2007, 10:34 AM

Is that a good idea? Nothing but the same stuff from your staff. Seems like it would allow hitters to adapt to it during a series - especially a 7 game one.

jacksonianmarch · 03-30-2007, 10:48 AM

I think Cashman is being realistic. Chances are, Sanchez is headed for the bullpen where his power stuff will be short burst. And Cashman is pretty realistic in that of all these guys we acquired this yr, maybe one will crack our staff at some point. Thing is, after Wang, there was no other power sinker guy in our minors. And a power sinker allows you to eat innings, something both of us learned last yr, is vital to a staff. Sinkerballers typically get through their innings with less pitches as they arent afraid of contact. And with the way our 5 slot has been and with the auditions and crap that has been inserted into our rotation since the great dissolve of 2003, we need stability. A guy like Ohlendorf may come up and be a Wang-lite. Give us 220IP mid 4's era and hold down the 5 hole like Wake does for you guys.

What I never understand is why sinkerballers never are considered big time prospects. Maybe cause they dont K a ton of hitters? Maybe because they are too predictable? Not sure.

Either way, the top prospects in our system on the pitching side were not sinkerballers until this yr. Hughes, Clippard, Betances, Chamberlain all are power arms while using the 2 seamer sparingly. Kennedy is being converted into a 2 seamer / offspeed pitcher and a guy like Jeff Marquez looks like a failed sinkerballer experiement to this point. Either way, to answer your question, I think they are looking to fill that 5 hole from within. And the sinkerballers are the most likely of the bunch to hold down a back of the rotation slot and not disappoint. Guys like Hughes, Betances, Chamberlain and Clippard are the guys with top of the rotation stuff.

One Red Seat · 03-30-2007, 12:05 PM

Sinkerballers aren't considered big time prospects because the balls in play eventually start hurting them. If I were a Yankee fan, building a team around Wang's success would concern me. Statistically speaking, Wang's success is a complete anomaly. Seems like an imprudent thing to try and emulate. Anomalies are, by definition, rare.

jacksonianmarch · 03-30-2007, 03:55 PM

Wang is the most extreme of all sinkerballers. The guys the yankees have now have a history of being able to get the K. Wang to this point does not.

And I disagree with your point to a degree. Balls put in play all depend on how hard they are hit. The days Wang gets beat are the days when the balls find the holes. You essentially know he isnt going to allow homers and most people cannot even lift the ball on him. You typically can only beat him by bleeding him to death. Then again, not many people have Wang's pitch. That sinker is absolutely nasty, like nothing I have ever seen before. The guys the yankees have assembled in the minors have nice sinkers, but they all pale in comparison to Wang's.

Of all of them, I think Ohlendorf is in the rotation come late 2008/opening day 2009. His sinker is very solid but his location of his secondary stuff is pretty solid as well. 29 walks in 180IP is Schilling-esque.

example1 · 03-31-2007, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacksonianmarch

Wang is the most extreme of all sinkerballers. The guys the yankees have now have a history of being able to get the K. Wang to this point does not.

And I disagree with your point to a degree. Balls put in play all depend on how hard they are hit. The days Wang gets beat are the days when the balls find the holes. You essentially know he isnt going to allow homers and most people cannot even lift the ball on him. You typically can only beat him by bleeding him to death. Then again, not many people have Wang's pitch. That sinker is absolutely nasty, like nothing I have ever seen before. The guys the yankees have assembled in the minors have nice sinkers, but they all pale in comparison to Wang's.

Derek Lowe comes to mind as a good comparison in terms of an effective sinker. You have a good assessment of most of your Yankee players Jacksonian and I appreciate your modest honesty.

I think the reason sinkerballers aren't considered big time prospects--as ORS began to point out--is that they allow too many balls to be put into play, which doesn't mean they'll be bad pitchers, but statistically that means they don't make people swing and miss--which is one of the key stats people look at to predict future success in the bigs. I think teams and scouts are more inclined to make them prove themselves in the majors before proclaiming them to be big time prospects. As far as I remember neither Lowe nor Wang were considered very good prospects... I could be wrong but I think both had to show they could do it.

That said, Wang is a very effective sinkerballer and should be a very good middle-tier starter for a few years to come.

jacksonianmarch · 03-31-2007, 09:26 AM

Wang actually was a top 10 prospect and hurt his arm. He required TJ and was moving his way up. In 2004, the yr before his callup, he learned the 2 seamer and the rest is history.

And example, I appreciate all on this site save a few jokers. But the Lowe reference is a little off IMO. The beauty of Wang's sinker is not just the movement, it is the speed. On his best days, Wang gets the sinker into the high 90s. Lowe typically sat high 80s low 90s with his sinker. With that kind of speed and with the amount of movement he gets on the ball, it is like trying to lift a bowling ball. To be honest with you, the teams that give him the most trouble are teams that can run. Those grounders turn into IF hits and Wang is abysmal at holding runners.

TheKilo · 03-31-2007, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jacksonianmarch

Wang actually was a top 10 prospect and hurt his arm. He required TJ and was moving his way up. In 2004, the yr before his callup, he learned the 2 seamer and the rest is history.

And example, I appreciate all on this site save a few jokers. But the Lowe reference is a little off IMO. The beauty of Wang's sinker is not just the movement, it is the speed. On his best days, Wang gets the sinker into the high 90s. Lowe typically sat high 80s low 90s with his sinker. With that kind of speed and with the amount of movement he gets on the ball, it is like trying to lift a bowling ball. To be honest with you, the teams that give him the most trouble are teams that can run. Those grounders turn into IF hits and Wang is abysmal at holding runners.

High 90s on the YES gun =/= high 90s.

Although I will say it's faster than Lowe's. Lowe also had that dirty 2-seamer. Just ask Terrence Long.

jacksonianmarch · 03-31-2007, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheKilo

High 90s on the YES gun =/= high 90s.

Although I will say it's faster than Lowe's. Lowe also had that dirty 2-seamer. Just ask Terrence Long.

A sinker is a 2 seamer pretty much. But it is a 2 seamer thrown with a little more downward snap. Some guys can throw one, I couldnt.