Kevin Slowey Projections
Today's the day that Kevin Slowey gets his first start in a major league ballgame. What do the numbers suggest Slowey might do? Three projection systems (that I know of) have projections for Slowey: CHONE, ZiPS, and PECOTA.
6.6 K/9, 2.7 BB/9, 1.3 HR/9, 4.02 ERA -- CHONE
6.1 K/9, 1.6 BB/9, 1.4 HR/9, 4.31 ERA -- ZiPS
5.9 K/9, 1.7 BB/9, 1.2 HR/9, 4.16 ERA -- PECOTA
PECOTA also has comparable pitchers for Slowey, and it does its player comparisons by player seasons, rather than by player careers. Recognizable names show up on Slowey's comparisons, which tends to be a good sign: John Maine '04, Verlander '06, Milton '98, Blanton '04, and Mussina '92, amongst others.
It's interesting to me that the three systems, with different methodologies, basically come to the same conclusion w/r/t Slowey. Solid, if unspectacular strikeout rate, with low walk rate, and an unattractive propensity for the long ball.
That's the sort of profile that has illicited a lot of Brad Radke comparisons. How justified are these comparisons?
3.7 K/9, 2.2 BB/9, 1.6 HR/9, 5.32 ERA -- Radke 1995 (age 22)
5.7 K/9, 2.2 BB/9, 1.6 HR/9, 4.46 ERA -- Radke 1996 (age 23)
5.4 K/9, 1.6 BB/9, 1.2 HR/9, 4.22 ERA -- Radke, career
[Note: in 1996, the league average ERA was 5.15, so a 4.46 ERA was really pretty good.]
I'm amazed that Radke was able to have an ERA of 5.32 in '96, given that abysmal strikeout rate combined with a pretty horrific HR rate. By his next season (181 innings and 28 starts later, I might add), he started to put things together.
Later in his career, Radke improved his already good control to a level that made him one of the best pitchers in baseball at preventing walks. It's much too early to tell whether or not Slowey can pitch like late career Brad Radke, but I'd say that early career Brad Radke really isn't a crazy comparison, at least if you're trying to describe Slowey's style and not how his entire career will turn out.
0 recs |
32 comments
Comments
Good work
The most difficult thing to predict is how Slowey develops. If Anderson can teach him to get better sink, he might turn out like Hershiser. Or if he learns a Radke-type change-up, his K/9 rate could go up. It'll be fun to watch.
by cmathewson on May 31, 2007 11:32 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yes
That's an EXCELLENT qualifier for the Radke/Slowey comparisons.
by AdamOnFirst on Jun 1, 2007 4:46 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Upside?
by yossarian on Jun 1, 2007 7:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
K/9s a little low?
by TheMattWilke on Jun 1, 2007 10:13 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Based
I wonder though, what did Maddux or Radke's minor league K totals look like? I bet they were a lot higher like Slowey's. I wonder if a lot of Slowey's strikeouts come on looking K's or not.
Actually, the only thing that worries me about him is where those extra strikeouts go. Does he get them from getting ahead on hitters then throwing junk out of the zone that suckers the young AAA hitters into bad swings? What happens when he has to come in against MLB hitters? Does it come from freezing hitters with lesser plate eyes?
A lot of the K's will end up coming from changing speeds up in the majors, but the one concern for me would be what happens to those 4 out of 9 K's that come from throwing balls out of the strike zone when he has to come into major league hitters? That's the spot that probably ends up as the hangup because it might mean a change in approach.
But based on his intelligence, he should be plenty smart enough to figure it out.
We have to try and remember though, and this is going to seem out of character, that a lot of pitchers with long careers were only okay their first years. They didn't really put it all together yet. Some guys do, but not everyone, and Radke is a good example.
by AdamOnFirst on Jun 1, 2007 11:09 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Radke & Maddux
Maddux's K rate was actually lower in the minors than in the majors, and it doesn't even look like that was skewed due to improvement during his major league career - even in his first mostly-full season with the Cubs (27 GS in '87), he had a 5.84 K/BB, while his minor league total was 5.66. It looks like he kept his ERA low in the minors through a combination of fairly low hit rates (7.92) and a microscopic HR rate (.29).
A side note: Maddux's homerun rates are amazing - his career rate was .62, just over half of Radke's 1.20, and in '94 when he put together a 1.56 ERA, it was .18 - 4 HR in 202 IP.
by BeefMaster on Jun 1, 2007 11:57 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Precedent
9.39 K/9 minors, 6.46 K/9 majors -- John Maine
8.53 K/9 minors, 6.42 K/9 majors -- Eric Milton
10.36 K/9 minors, 5.97 K/9 majors -- Justin Verlander
8.33 K/9 minors, 5.11 K/9 majors -- Joe Blanton
So at least within the guys that Slowey is being considered comparable to, a dip of 3 K/9 isn't uncommon at all when making the transition from minors to majors.
by ubelmann on Jun 1, 2007 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
There
Why doesn't Verlander strike out mroe guys with that 98 MPH fastball of his?
by AdamOnFirst on Jun 1, 2007 12:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maddux
He also needs to get more sink to compare with Maddux. Maddux has the best movement and control combination I've ever seen. Radke could spot his mostly straight fastball. Maddux can spot his sinker that moves close to a foot.
I think Slowey will have a career somewhere in between Kevin Tapani and Orel Hershiser. It all depends on health and development.
by cmathewson on Jun 1, 2007 11:59 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I will
I will take the ubellman approach and modify this quote like this:
I think Slowey will resemble something between Kevin Tapani and Orel Hershiser. It all depends on health and development."
by AdamOnFirst on Jun 1, 2007 12:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Inaccurate
I don't think he's a good comp. When Maddux came up (at age 20), he threw a 95 MPH heavy sinker. He made himself into a finesse sinkerballer over the next three years. But he can still get it up there a couple of times a game when he needs a key strikeout.
<<<<
95 mph fastball? Greg Maddux?
At no point in his career. Not even close.
Even out of high school the scouting report on Maddux was his fastball topped out at 89. It never changed.
The MLB Scouting Bureau report on Maddux was "average velocity on a sinking fastball", and no scout projected him to ever be overpowering.
He was a mid-80s pitcher when he came up with the Cubs, just as he was at Valley High in Las Vegas.
At 25, with 173 starts (Slowey would project to 173 starts in his late 20s, and in only someone's wildest dreams is likely to compare to Maddux), Maddux's fastball speed had not changed in any way worth noting in comparison to his high school days.
He could reach 90 on an accurate gun in his early seasons with the Cubs, giving him at best 2 mph over his high school days.
At that point, his changeup was his out pitch, a devastating fuse to more empty right-handed swings than any other pitch in baseball. It was Maddux's changeup that made his dipping 87-mph fastball so effective. But 95? That's just plain incorrect, and by a long ways.
Maddux's fastball always moved, but it was never something that would scare a hitter if it had come at his shoulder.
At 25, Maddux threw the fastball plenty, but he also had a slider (which he lacked completely in high school and overthrew in his early Cubs' years; it was his worst pitch), curveball (which was a good pitch for him against high school hitters, but he got on top of it only intermittently even when he was 25, which was sometimes understandably problematic for him), that unmatched circle change and a well-above average splitter.
by Firpo Marberry on Jun 2, 2007 2:59 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
by AdamOnFirst on Jun 2, 2007 5:20 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
by cmathewson on Jun 2, 2007 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A Little Off-Topic...
by Flip27 on Jun 1, 2007 12:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Clemens
by AdamOnFirst on Jun 1, 2007 12:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'd pass...
Not really.
Regards,
by the Dragon on Jun 1, 2007 12:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I too am curious about that
by cmathewson on Jun 1, 2007 1:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Why?
by AdamOnFirst on Jun 1, 2007 2:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Clemens is done
by cmathewson on Jun 1, 2007 2:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Based
by AdamOnFirst on Jun 1, 2007 2:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Based on his minor league work
by cmathewson on Jun 1, 2007 2:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Fair enough
by AdamOnFirst on Jun 1, 2007 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right
History is replete with guys who extended their careers a year or two too long with disastrous results. I am old enough to remember when the Twins brought in Steve Carlton. That was ugly and embarrassing. I don't think Clemens will be that bad. But he won't be as good as he was the last couple of years, that's for sure.
by cmathewson on Jun 1, 2007 2:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I love it
by rayken on Jun 1, 2007 5:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
18-ish
by JS22 on Jun 1, 2007 5:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Naw
by AdamOnFirst on Jun 1, 2007 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
True or Not
That is very true, and quite a concern for a guy who has always attributed much of his success and certainly his career longevity to being a very very hard worker.
"If he's lit up by A-ball and AA hitters, I wonder how it will go with AL hitters."
That isn't really fair. He gave up one run on three hits with two K's in four innings. Granted, though, the Twins A-ball lineup he faced is pretty flimsy. In AA he pitched worse, giving up 3 runs with 4 walks in 5.1 IP. That's not so great, but I wouldn't call it being 'lit up' per se. In AAA, he pitched very nicely giving up only two hits and two walks in a six-inning shutout, while striking out 6.
I wouldn't really call that a very poor rehab stint at all.
All this said, I see the basis of your concerns, especially the out of shape beliefs.
At any rate, we will find out very very soon what he's capable of giving the Yanks. I'm not sure how I feel about Clemens outside of his magnificent career, but I know I hate the Yankees, so I wouldn't mind so much if he flops.
All this information we just talked about though, is stuff they have learned since they signed him. I was more speaking that I would rather have Clemens if I had to pick between the two before the fact.
As curiosity, what do you think Maddux would be able to do were he in the Al East?
by AdamOnFirst on Jun 1, 2007 5:43 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Maddux in the AL East
by cmathewson on Jun 2, 2007 12:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'll
Hey, you know what would be fun?
I think at the end of the year I'll do an entry comparing 40-plus year old pitchers and things like that. Should be interesting.
by AdamOnFirst on Jun 2, 2007 3:59 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Projections
If you did a projection of the Twins finish in their division last year at this time, it would not have been pretty.
But, instead, they ended up winning the Division.
Slowey will be whatever he is, despite our best attempts to bracket him at this point.
And no matter what the numbers, it always comes down to making good pitches at the right time and hanging in there giving your team a chance to win.
by Old Twins Cap on Jun 2, 2007 10:09 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
What is the point of being a fan?
And no matter what the numbers, it always comes down to making good pitches at the right time and hanging in there giving your team a chance to win.
It would be AMAZING if I could make one post here without someone talking about how numbers don't matter. No one said that numbers were everything.
by ubelmann on Jun 2, 2007 2:57 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tears
They aren't??!
*(whimpers, begins to cry silently, runs of bawling like you just told a 5 year old there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, or Tooth Fairy -- which is very mean because there obviously is)
by AdamOnFirst on Jun 2, 2007 3:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

by 















