2017 Jordan Montgomery thread

[hellonewman]

Finally got to watch the whole start and man, great stuff from Montgomery. Readings are totally unreliable from Brooks. Not the right number of pitches, pitch types misregistering and it had his average FB around 88.7 which would mean he was basically sitting 88-89. No chance. Gameday had him sitting 93 the whole first inning when I was following along live.

Anyway, all you need to know about Montgomery's stuff is the 17 friggin' swings and misses on 89 pitches today. That is fantastic. His changeup is a blatant plus pitch. His ability to command and locate the slider in on righties and throw his curveball in any count makes two average pitches play up. You heard Coney talk about how he had really good stuff as well and I trust his take more than anyone in the game.

I don't see him being an amazing starter but he has #3 ceiling and the pitchability to offer consistency at the back of our rotation. He'll take lumps when his location is off - more so than maybe other pitchers - but got to love his ability.

I'm an old guy, he reminds me A LOT of Rudy May from the 1970s Yankees. Different repertoire but the delivery is very similar. Scary similar actually. Rudy relied more on a big jughandle curveball, an 87 mph (guesstimate, they weren't using guns yet back then) fastball he could locate anywhere, and a Vaseline-enhanced changeup. This kid has a much better fastball and his curve isn't as booming but he has a great change that presumably isn't artificially lubricated like Rudy's was.

[DaBliz]

Melan,

A fastball that "sits" 93 and touches higher velocities definitely looks different than a fastball that sits 91 and touches 93. You're telling me you can't tell the difference between Kershaw's fastball and Scott Kazmir's fastball?

I took the 19 pitches that Montgomery that were reported over 90 MPH and averaged them together to find an average fastball velocity of 91.72. Out of 137 starting pitchers who threw 100+ innings last season, that would place him at tied for 71st. I didn't say that made his fastball average, as clearly more things come into play. But, with the information that is out there, that's basically the DEFINITION of average velocity. And this was after I took out any pitch that was below 90 as a way to throw out faulty-looking numbers. When you correct the labeling on the pitches, the numbers from Brooks look completely valid.

I want this guy to succeed but I'm going to be objective about it. If you disagree with the numbers, call them "fake news" for all I care. But this campaign you're on about this player is really strange. You completely disregard anything that challenges your narrative, even things that don't use any subjective opinion. Maybe you just don't care about statistics beyond the ones that confirm your preconceived notions.

If his next start contains stats that contradict these results, I'd be happy to incorporate them into the discussion. Also, please stop arguing against things I never even said (like that he has an average fastball; I CLEARLY said "average velocity" and I nowhere near insinuated that was the only thing that matters with fastballs).

[awy]

you can't really go by this one start. look at reports from his season last year and this spring. it's certainly not 90-92

[DaBliz]

you can't really go by this one start. look at reports from his season last year and this spring. it's certainly not 90-92

Only came in here to post numbers that another poster requested, and was once again argued at for things I didn't say. It's definitely a small sample size at the very best and I'm definitely willing to throw out these numbers if the next start contradicts them. Doesn't change the info that's out there right now, though.

EDIT: You know what? I'm looking at things now. Could it be his cutter that sits in the mid 80s? I changed all of the FFs below 90s to FCs, and the stats are looking more reasonable. I'll post images when I clean things up a bit more into pivot tables. (I'm also doing this as a test run for the future to help generate stats.)

[awy]

they do seem to be having problems with the gun. it's best to wait for more information

[Melancynic]

Melan,

A fastball that "sits" 93 and touches higher velocities definitely looks different than a fastball that sits 91 and touches 93. You're telling me you can't tell the difference between Kershaw's fastball and Scott Kazmir's fastball?

First, keep your condescension, I'm well aware of what "sitting" means. I specifically said sitting around 93. Snell was higher b/c he is a guy who can legitimately pitch at 93-95. Montgomery, according to gameday, was 92-93 in the first, totally reasonable.

But, wtf are you talking about?

Without the aid of a gun I hate to break it to you but not you, nor I, can tell the difference between a 90-92mph pitch and a 92-93mph fastball. It is such a minuscule difference to the naked eye without radar readings to fall back on. It's like the Pepsi challenge except both are Pepsi, one just has more ice. If it were, 91 vs 97 ok, maybe, but that's not what we're talking about. But yeah, if you put your hand over one eye and just saw the path of a Kazmir 91 mph FB and then a Kershaw 93 mph FB, I don't think you'd be able to tell their velo's apart. That's absurd.

I took the 19 pitches that Montgomery that were reported over 90 MPH and averaged them together to find an average fastball velocity of 91.72. Out of 137 starting pitchers who threw 100+ innings last season, that would place him at tied for 71st. I didn't say that made his fastball average, as clearly more things come into play. But, with the information that is out there, that's basically the DEFINITION of average velocity.

Even if those numbers were legit, which they aren't, that is still above-avg. velocity for a LHSP. You're confusing the DEFINITION of average velo for a RHSP, which is typically more than 1mph harder than lefty starters.

From FanGraphs:

Right-handed starters: 91.9 mph average fastball, 19.5% K, 7.0% BB
Left-handed starters: 90.6 mph average fastball, 20.3% K, 7.1% BB

So if Escobar could sit over 91 mph as a starter, his velocity would indeed be above-average for a lefty starter.

I don't get this:

I want this guy to succeed but I'm going to be objective about it. If you disagree with the numbers, call them "fake news" for all I care. But this campaign you're on about this player is really strange. You completely disregard anything that challenges your narrative, even things that don't use any subjective opinion. Maybe you just don't care about statistics beyond the ones that confirm your preconceived notions.

What in God's name am I not being objective about? Montgomery is a 4-pitch guy with command and movement and a fastball that's upticked the past year. No fake news here, anyone watching Montgomery this spring saw him hitting 94-95 with surprising frequency. What exactly are you suggesting I've projected Montgomery as? Please explain. I said he's better than Chad friggin Green and that, between those two, he belongs in the rotation over Green. Wow. What an insane notion. I think he has a high floor as a consistent back-end rotation piece with a #3 ceiling if absolutely everything breaks right and his velo uptick is for real. Again, what is so outlandish about that. Your reaction is the strange one, implying I put a frontline starter label on the dude.

And, I'm not the one who calls his stuff fringe and doesn't think he has a single plus pitch when, anyone with even a beginner's understanding of pitching, could see that his changeup is easily a plus pitch. That seems slanted if we're discussing objectivity.

If his next start contains stats that contradict these results, I'd be happy to incorporate them into the discussion. Also, please stop arguing against things I never even said (like that he has an average fastball; I CLEARLY said "average velocity" and I nowhere near insinuated that was the only thing that matters with fastballs).

*You're right you said average velocity. And, what does it matter man, I said in the very next sentence that his velo is above average. Why do you nitpick for no reason. I responded to just what you said.

[DaBliz]

First, keep your condescension, I'm well aware of what "sitting" means. I specifically said sitting around 93. Snell was higher b/c he is a guy who can legitimately pitch at 93-95. Montgomery, according to gameday, was 92-93 in the first, totally reasonable.

Oh, okay, so Gameday was wrong in every other inning, besides the one inning you arbitrarily determined was correct because it corroborated your opinion. That's rich, man. I wasn't being condescending, either. A pitcher who "sits" 93 doesn't max out at 93. Nice little revision of what you're saying Montgomery was throwing in the 1st, by the way. Is this how you operate? Say incorrect things and then when you're corrected, nitpick some unrelated ................ while also incorporating the thing you were corrected on in the first place?

Okay, now I am being condescending, because you're arguing in a super shady way. Lucky for you, I will let you have the last word after this and I'm considering never responding to you ever again, because it's about as productive as slamming my head into a wall. But, of course, I'm sure you'll continue to follow me around the boards and instigating non-stop. It's kind of your calling card.

But, wtf are you talking about?

THIS is condescension. And once again, you are projecting.

Without the aid of a gun I hate to break it to you but not you, nor I, can tell the difference between a 90-92mph pitch and a 92-93mph fastball. It is such a minuscule difference to the naked eye without radar readings to fall back on. It's like the Pepsi challenge except both are Pepsi, one just has more ice. If it were, 91 vs 97 ok, maybe, but that's not what we're talking about. But yeah, if you put your hand over one eye and just saw the path of a Kazmir 91 mph FB and then a Kershaw 93 mph FB, I don't think you'd be able to tell their velo's apart.

Besides the asinine metaphor doesn't make sense in the slightest, there's a clear difference between the AVERAGE fastball of a pitcher like Kershaw from a pitcher like Kazmir. Once again, you're changing the argument to make your side look better in a ridiculous manner. Did I say that I could eyeball two single pitches? -- and why in the hell would I need to cover one eye to watch something? Are you a pirate? Either way, the difference in average velocity readings takes place over the course of an entire game, or an entire season. Once again, I'll reiterate, when you watch those two pitchers pitch full games, even without a gun, you can't tell that one guy throws harder? If that's true, that's fine, I guess, but don't assume your limitations onto me.

And I am actually very good at guessing velocities but I'm not cocky enough to believe I can pick out 91 vs. 93. That's absurd.

Once again, I never said that, but nice try with strawmanning.

Even if those numbers were legit, which they aren't, that is still above-avg. velocity for a LHSP. You're confusing the DEFINITION of average velo for a RHSP.

Yes, he was about 1 MPH faster than the average lefty with that velocity. But, like you said, those numbers can't be right, right? I mean, you'll still shoehorn it into your argument, even though you don't agree with it, but it's completely out of the realm of the possibility that they just classified a few pitches incorrectly.

And, I'm not the one who calls his stuff fringe and doesn't think he has a single plus pitch when, anyone with even a beginner's understanding of pitching, could see that his changeup is easily a plus pitch. That seems slanted if we're discussing objectivity.

Maybe next time I'll have to watch with with one hand over my eye. Also, you say that you think Montgomery has a "#3 ceiling" while simultaneous saying that he has "an above average fastball" (a "bowling ball FB up to 95/96"), a "blatant plus change", "a curveball that flashes plus", and an "average slider". You literally described a perennial All Star LHP; how in the hell is that a "#3 ceiling"? I'm pretty sure you're only adding the #3 thing to seem reasonable while continually geeking out over this dude nonstop. What are his limitations if he has this amazing stuff, prototypical size, above average command and control?

*You're right you said average velocity. And, what does it matter man, I said in the next sentence that his velo is above average. Why do you nitpick for no reason. I responded to just what you said *in the next sentence..

What does it matter? You said I said one thing (which I didn't) and argued against it! Sorry that I'm not going to let you completely make things up about what I said without calling you out for it. It's not nitpicking, it's picking out .................

[DaBliz]

Oh, and here's another thing that might explain upticks in velocities across the board in the MLB this year:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/about...locity-spikes/

So yeah, the old definitions of what an "average fastball" is, are probably irrelevant. Once again, this game does not seem to be a great first example to use, but there could be plenty of reasons why the Brooks info doesn't match the first inning's velocity metrics. Also, the numbers could have been messed up on the way to the television screen, but fine at the field level. There's a lot that goes from recording a pitch, to translating it, to putting it in the booth, and then on your TV.

Very interesting article if people want to get a jump on "new sabermetrics" (such as spin rate) and how they're actually recorded.

[Melancynic]

Oh, okay, so Gameday was wrong in every other inning, besides the one inning you arbitrarily determined was correct because it corroborated your opinion. That's rich, man.

What are you going on about? Gameday only offered velocities in the 1st inning. There WERE no readings after the 1st. I was following along live because I was at work and couldn't watch the game. I wasn't cherrypicking an inning. I wish Gameday had velos for the rest of the game because I was eager to see. Jesus Christ.

Okay, now I am being condescending, because you're arguing in a super shady way. Lucky for you, I will let you have the last word after this and I'm considering never responding to you ever again, because it's about as productive as slamming my head into a wall. But, of course, I'm sure you'll continue to follow me around the boards and instigating non-stop. It's kind of your calling card.

How am I arguing "in a super shady way?"

Because I again point out you misspoke, this time about average velocity for a lefty starter? Apologies for being straightforward and supporting with facts. Super shady.

Once again, instead of saying *whoops* you go off on some psychobabble tangent and that you're "giving me the last word."

The irony is that you sunk yourself with your own calculations, stating Montgomery's average velocity was 91.7, and then brashly stating that is "BY DEFINITION" average velocity. Except you can't just average out all starters b/c righties have always thrown harder than lefties. As a result, by definition, lefties throwing 91+ - like Montgomery, who's very possibly closer to 92+ - actually has above-avarege velo.

Btw, I didn't follow you on these boards. You made a snide comment about Montgomery not having any standout stuff after his debut today. A debut where he got 17 SWINGS AND MISSES out of 89 pitches. That's a 20% swing and miss rate compared to the league average of 10%. Yep, how "fringe" and "average" of him.

I'm sorry that you've been comically wrong about Montgomery all over the place.

He's a fringe prospect.
His FB has average velocity.
Green will beat Montgomery out for the 5th rotation slot.

You're really knocking em out of the park dude.

You then make all these bizarre accusations and never actually follow through. I ask again, what is my "narrative" on Montgomery? That I accurately portrayed his stuff, pitch repertoire and preference of him over Chad Green? Who cares. That's not fitting a narrative, that's a realistic take. I ask for examples of my "bias" or whatever you've implied and you come back with this weird post lacking any coherence or sticking to the point.

Besides the asinine metaphor doesn't make sense in the slightest, there's a clear difference between the AVERAGE fastball of a pitcher like Kershaw from a pitcher like Kazmir.

No, smart guy, that's NOT what you said and not what I responded to. You said you could tell the difference between a pitch thrown between 90-93 (91.5) and a pitch sitting 93 (92-94) only using your eyes. Yeah, that's utter bull. I have 20/20 vision too and a good gauge of pitch speeds. That you think you could tell the difference of 1 or 2 mph ticks via TV is hysterical. But yea, I said Kershaw/Kazmir have the same avg fastball. WHAT?

Maybe next time I'll have to watch with with one hand over my eye. Also, you say that you think Montgomery has a "#3 ceiling" while simultaneous saying that he has "an above average fastball" (a "bowling ball FB up to 95/96"), a "blatant plus change", "a curveball that flashes plus", and an "average slider". You literally described a perennial All Star LHP; how in the hell is that a "#3 ceiling"? I'm pretty sure you're only adding the #3 thing to seem reasonable while continually geeking out over this dude nonstop. What are his limitations if he has this amazing stuff, prototypical size, above average command and control?

Yes, an above avg heavy FB and plus change. I said his curveball and slider are average with the CB capable of flashing plus. That is not a perennial all star and I never suggested so. Talk about putting words in someone's mouth. You know who Ivan Nova is right? With the Yankees he had a plus FB and, depending on the year, showed a plus curveball and changeup that flashed plus as well as a season in which he developed a plus, strikeout slider. I must have missed all the all star appearances he piled up over the years. There are plenty of guys with plus stuff who, for a variety of reasons, can't put it all together to become a top starter.

But I'm still curious how I've "geeked out" over JM nonstop. Because I disagree with your wacky assertion that he is a borderline nonprospect? You seriously just make stuff up out of desperation because you know I've never once suggested Montgomery has an upside greater than a #3 guy, which is if every single thing goes right. He is likely a back end starter.

What does it matter? You said I said one thing (which I didn't) and argued against it! Sorry that I'm not going to let you completely make things up about what I said without calling you out for it. It's not nitpicking, it's picking out ................

Alright, you're obviously just trying to be difficult now. Try reading. IN THE NEXT SENTENCE I said his FB velo was above average, responding to your point. I also said his FB overall is above-average. I am allowed to expand on my points.

[DaBliz]

Eh, I wasn't going to post again, but getting called a liar is pretty inspiring. I was also intrigued about what the "average starting LHP" velocity actually is. So, I conducted a little study:

Average Lefty Velocity in 2016
*all qualifying LHP who pitched over 160 innings last year
Danny Duffy 94.9
Carlos Rodon 93.6
Chris Sale 93 (does not throw 4-seamer, this is a 2-seamer)
David Price 92.9
Martin Perez 92.9
Matt Moore 92.8
Francisco Liriano 92.4
Jon Lester 92
Jose Quintana 92
Brandon Finnegan 91.8
J.A. Happ 91.8
Cole Hamels 91.5
Hector Santiago 91.3 (does not throw 4-seamer, this is a sinker)
Drew Pomeranz 91.2
Gio Gonzalez 91
Madison Bumgarner 90.7
Jaime Garcia 90.6
Wade Miley 90.3
Drew Smyly 90.2
CC Sabathia 89.4
Dallas Kuechel 88.3

RESULTS
Mean Velocity 91.6
Median Velocity 91.8
% over 92 mph 43%

So, if we consider that the velocity I gave Montgomery before (remember: the one where I raised it), he falls directly in between the Median and the Mean. And, also, remember from the article I posted that the new Trackman system has consistently added over 1 MPH on mph readings due to the fact that it captures the peak velocity (right after the pitch leaves the hand). So, I think it is reasonable to say that the average fastball by seasons end--according to Statcast, fangraphs, and the like--will reach the 93 MPH for lefties that Jordan Montgomery "sits" now, according to Melancynic.

Now, as far as "fringe prospect goes". I've thought a lot about it and considered what people have been saying and I think I'm willing to compromise. I'm willing to separate prospects into: Top/Blue Chip Prospects (top 100 range), Legitimate Prospects (Likely to Stick, questionable star potential), Fringe Prospects (Questionable ability to stick, little-to-no star potential), and non-prospects (this does not mean valueless, just more question marks than positives). This is not the type of rankings everyone uses. For example, take this tweet that Melancynic received from Jay Jaffe but did not share because he is intellectually dishonest:

Jay Jaffe‏Verified account @jay_jaffe Apr 9
generally, one who with a low probability of becoming an above-average player. Needs a breakthrough to boost his projection.

Now, the reason I point this out is because Melancynic himself says that Montgomery has a ceiling of a #3 starter, which mathematically speaking, is an average MLB starter. This is extremely ironic; the quote he received from his selected expert actually means that Melancynic should call Montgomery a fringe prospect!

However, as I said, I'm willing to use a 4-tier system from here on out for the sake of communicating effectively with members on this board. I would place Jordan in the Legitimate prospect tier, closer to fringe than blue chip. This is a compromise and I would like to take this time to apologize to everyone for being stubborn about something when I should not have been. While I think there are definitely scouts that consider Montgomery fringe, I do not believe that he is fringe - I just believe that he is very, very close to Chad Green and close (but less close) to Luis Cessa and Brian Mitchell.

Lastly, I will admit to being fully wrong about Green winning the last spot over Montgomery. I had thought the organization would balk at losing someone like Johnny Barbato, but I would like to reiterate that I never called Green a better prospect. But I guess this is some big huge error to Melancynic, so my bad. Factually, Montgomery was the #5 starter to start this year.

[For the sake of this post, I have ignored the comments that were complete garbage]

In honor of Charlie Murphy: Game, blouses.

[Beagle]

M and DB - Do you guys have like jobs or do you live in your parents' basement enjoying life in a virtual reality world that you only leave to watch and comment on Yankees games?

[freebubba]

M and DB - Do you guys have like jobs or do you live in your parents' basement enjoying life in a virtual reality world that you only leave to watch and comment on Yankees games?

Uh oh. What the rest of us don't realize is that these guys are best buddies, get hammered and watch all the games together, trading off on basement venues, of course :-).

[freebubba]

Anyway, all you need to know about Montgomery's stuff is the 17 friggin' swings and misses on 89 pitches today. That is fantastic. His changeup is a blatant plus pitch. His ability to command and locate the slider in on righties and throw his curveball in any count makes two average pitches play up. You heard Coney talk about how he had really good stuff as well and I trust his take more than anyone in the game.

That rate probably isn't sustainable, but it was fun as hell to watch yesterday. Also, the fact that he was so composed when he got into a bit of trouble and made some real quality pitches is telling as to what this kid can be. He did not sh*t his pants out there. I think Coney may have sent him a dozen roses afterwards

[kan_t]

Have you come across information about if this is going to last any length of time? Will they be stepping up the pitch count each start? I certainly hope so. I don't want to see him yanked at the first sign of trouble. He needs to be comfortable and learn how to get out of jams or work with runners on base late in the game. If he starts to worry about letting up a baserunner in the 5th and getting pulled, he's going to let up baserunners in the 5th and get pulled. Unneeded stress.

I don't have the information. Logical guess is that they would slowly build his pitch count up. Next start may be on 90-95 pitch limit if he goes well.

[DaBliz]

M and DB - Do you guys have like jobs or do you live in your parents' basement enjoying life in a virtual reality world that you only leave to watch and comment on Yankees games?

Grad school and working graveyard shifts give me a lot of time to analyze baseball. I've also posted a "staggering" 0.37 posts a day here and have had a whopping single feud like this over the last decade I've been registered here. But yeah, I totally live in a virtual reality world in my mom's basement. Please order me some cheetos and Mountain Dew, Mr. Totally Important in the Real World.

[Melancynic]

Eh, I wasn't going to post again, but getting called a liar is pretty inspiring. I was also intrigued about what the "average starting LHP" velocity actually is. So, I conducted a little study:

So, if we consider that the velocity I gave Montgomery before (remember: the one where I raised it), he falls directly in between the Median and the Mean. And, also, remember from the article I posted that the new Trackman system has consistently added over 1 MPH on mph readings due to the fact that it captures the peak velocity (right after the pitch leaves the hand). So, I think it is reasonable to say that the average fastball by seasons end--according to Statcast, fangraphs, and the like--will reach the 93 MPH for lefties that Jordan Montgomery "sits" now, according to Melancynic.

First, cool random cherrypicked "study" man.

To correct you, I never once said he sits 93. Again, I clearly said he was "sitting around 93" during one inning yesterday. I also very clearly stated in my last post that he probably sits close to 92+ at this point. Go back and try to read English.

Now, as far as "fringe prospect goes". I've thought a lot about it and considered what people have been saying and I think I'm willing to compromise. I'm willing to separate prospects into: Top/Blue Chip Prospects (top 100 range), Legitimate Prospects (Likely to Stick, questionable star potential), Fringe Prospects (Questionable ability to stick, little-to-no star potential), and non-prospects (this does not mean valueless, just more question marks than positives). This is not the type of rankings everyone uses. For example, take this tweet that Melancynic received from Jay Jaffe but did not share because he is intellectually dishonest:

A) This is not a compromise it is clearly an admission that you were 100% incorrect.
B) I am "intellectually dishonest" now. OK, how about including the entire Twitter conversation, instead of dishonestly picking out one piece that pushes your insane obsession with ignoring reality:

DeadpoolShark‏ @DeadpoolShark Apr 9
@jay_jaffe Hey Jay, can you end a debate for me. What is your definition for "fringe prospect"?

Jay Jaffe‏Verified account @jay_jaffe Apr 9
Replying to @DeadpoolShark
generally, one who with a low probability of becoming an above-average player. Needs a breakthrough to boost his projection.

DeadpoolShark‏ @DeadpoolShark Apr 9
More specifically, do you think any prospect not ranked among expert's top 100 should be considered "fringe" guys? That's one side of debate

Jay Jaffe‏Verified account @jay_jaffe Apr 10
More
oh no. That's way too broad. Via BA Handbook, decent system might have 15 of top 30 graded 50 (avg) or better. Won't all pan out but (1/2)

So, keep out the part where he entirely shoots down your concept of non top-100 starters are fringe. OK, got it.

Now, the reason I point this out is because Melancynic himself says that Montgomery has a ceiling of a #3 starter, which mathematically speaking, is an average MLB starter. This is extremely ironic; the quote he received from his selected expert actually means that Melancynic should call Montgomery a fringe prospect!

OMG, are you really this clueless or just desperate?

First, you think being an average major league starter is equivalent to being an average pitching prospect in the minors? Holy ................. GM's, especially Cashman, wish pitching prospects translated so seamlessly from farm to MLB.

"Mathametically speaking" a #3 starter is an average starter? Really? That's interesting. Again, a wacky, inaccurate statement, though. If Montgomery turned in six years of cost control as a #3 starter it would be one of the biggest success stories in Yankees starting pitcher prospect history the last 20+ years..

However, as I said, I'm willing to use a 4-tier system from here on out for the sake of communicating effectively with members on this board. I would place Jordan in the Legitimate prospect tier, closer to fringe than blue chip. This is a compromise and I would like to take this time to apologize to everyone for being stubborn about something when I should not have been. While I think there are definitely scouts that consider Montgomery fringe, I do not believe that he is fringe - I just believe that he is very, very close to Chad Green and close (but less close) to Luis Cessa and Brian Mitchell.

Yes, whatever system isn't based on prospects falling two categories: elite vs. fringe. That would've been insanity, only further entertaining that you called it "the industry standard."

Lastly, I will admit to being fully wrong about Green winning the last spot over Montgomery. I had thought the organization would balk at losing someone like Johnny Barbato, but I would like to reiterate that I never called Green a better prospect. But I guess this is some big huge error to Melancynic, so my bad. Factually, Montgomery was the #5 starter to start this year.

[For the sake of this post, I have ignored the comments that were complete garbage]

In honor of Charlie Murphy: Game, blouses.

"Game blouses."

Yes, you absolutely claimed Green the better prospect. You may not have said it verbatim, spelled out, as you seem to require. But to say you weren't obviously stating Green >>> Monty is so disingenuous it's comical.

[DaBliz]

First, cool random cherrypicked "study" man.

What are you talking about cherrypicked? I went and selected every qualified LH starting pitcher last year from fangraphs. I wasn't even doing it to support an argument. I just did it because I was curious. The fact that it supports my point doesn't mean it was "cherrypicked".

To correct you, I never once said he sits 93. Again, I clearly said he was "sitting around 93" during one inning yesterday. I also very clearly stated in my last post that he probably sits close to 92+ at this point. Go back and try to read English.

In page 1 of this thread, you literally stated that, "He was sitting 93 during the spring and hitting 94-95 regularly." You keep on winding down that number to seem more reasonable but, at this point in time, there is still little-to-no real evidence that Montgomery has plus fastball velocity, even if we only consider lefties. Maybe you should go back and read your own posts.

A) This is not a compromise it is clearly an admission that you were 100% incorrect.
B) I am "intellectually dishonest" now. OK, how about including the entire Twitter conversation

I didn't include the part you already posted because you already posted it lmao.

"Mathametically speaking" a #3 starter is an average starter? Really? That's interesting. Again, a wacky, inaccurate statement, though. If Montgomery turned in six years of cost control as a #3 starter it would be one of the biggest success stories in Yankees starting pitcher prospect history the last 20+ years..

The modern pitching staff has 5 starters. The number 3 is in the middle of 5. Middle as in 'average' of. Are you trying to be obtuse now?

Yes, you absolutely claimed Green the better prospect. You may not have said it verbatim, spelled out, as you seem to require. But to say you weren't obviously stating Green >>> Monty is so disingenuous it's comical.

This right here is why I keep posting. STOP SAYING THAT I SAID THINGS THAT I NEVER SAID NOR EVEN IMPLIED. This entire thing started because I said that Montgomery, Cessa, and Green were all fringe starters. Explain to me how that means that I said Green >>> Monty? Repeatedly I've said that I consider them to be of equal value.

This is why I said you're intellectually dishonest. You've made plenty of things up, disregarded evidence that contradicts your bias, and have acted sanctimonious throughout the entire process. Not once have you posted your own evidence that is anything beyond "WELL THIS IS MY OPINION" or "WELL THIS IS WHAT SOME BASEBALL WRITER SAID ON TWITTER". Your posts stink, and still you post at a rate that is virtually 20x the rate at which I post. Maybe instead of typing at the keyboard all day you should do research, read more, or just quit altogether.

[Melancynic]

In page 1 of this thread, you literally stated that, "He was sitting 93 during the spring and hitting 94-95 regularly." You keep on winding down that number to seem more reasonable but, at this point in time, there is still little-to-no real evidence that Montgomery has plus fastball velocity, even if we only consider lefties. Maybe you should go back and read your own posts.

Yes, in the two spring training starts he was sitting 93. Do you disagree? What is the point?

I said in his ML debut start he was sitting around 93 for ONE inning where readings were available, you know during the game in question where you said you could tell by your naked eye the difference between a 90-93 mph fastball and a 92-94 mph fastball.

The modern pitching staff has 5 starters. The number 3 is in the middle of 5. Middle as in 'average' of. Are you trying to be obtuse now?

That you actually believe this is how it works is so funny. Really? So Matt Harvey is an average pitcher? Every team isn't built with the same staff. You make these crazy sweeping comments that are so uninformed it's like you don't even watch the game.

The point which you dodge on every argument, is there you implied an average prospect means they are an average starting pitcher and vice versa. Bananas stuff and has nothing to do with the original points. That Montgomery has an average FB. FanGraphs and "the industry" says no. But right, you throw up some makeshift "study" you concocted and I'm supposed to take it over Fangraphs. OF course! Not that I believe for a second that the average LHSP velocity is 93.0 mph.

This right here is why I keep posting. STOP SAYING THAT I SAID THINGS THAT I NEVER SAID NOR EVEN IMPLIED. This entire thing started because I said that Montgomery, Cessa, and Green were all fringe starters. Explain to me how that means that I said Green >>> Monty? Repeatedly I've said that I consider them to be of equal value.

No, the whole thing is that you called him a fringe prospect with fringe stuff. Both aspects are wrong. You've since backpedaled and blamed everyone else but yourself in the process.

This is why I said you're intellectually dishonest. You've made plenty of things up, disregarded evidence that contradicts your bias, and have acted sanctimonious throughout the entire process. Not once have you posted your own evidence that is anything beyond "WELL THIS IS MY OPINION" or "WELL THIS IS WHAT SOME BASEBALL WRITER SAID ON TWITTER". Your posts stink, and still you post at a rate that is virtually 20x the rate at which I post. Maybe instead of typing at the keyboard all day you should do research, read more, or just quit altogether.

Please. You're responding to me just as much as I am you. But yea, you're doing it with such class, right? Give me a break. Just learn to admit when you screw up and life will be much easier for you.

[DaBliz]

I'm "literally a liar"? I LITERALLY copy and pasted your quote. Here, I'll quote it again and provide the exact link:

He was sitting 93 during the spring and hitting 94-95 regularly.

http://www.nyyfansforum.com/showthre...=1#post8262424

Matt Harvey isn't a #3 just because he's a #3 on a great staff. A #3 is someone who averages about 1.8-2.1 WAR a season, as that would usually put them in the 70-80 range for MLB starters. Someone like Drew Smyly or Ivan Nova. The distribution is quite easy to explain:

There are 30 #1's. There are 30 #2's, and so on. Some teams, like the Padres, do not have a #1 quality pitcher. Some teams, like the Mets, have multiple #1s. Now, you can call someone on the Padres their #1, and that's fine, but when you say a prospect has the ceiling of a #3, you're not talking about a specific team anymore because that would make no sense.

At least with the 'fringe prospect' thing you were debating a term that doesn't have an exact meaning (demonstrated by the tweets you received where different guys said different things, and my posts where different web sites had different standards). But with this? You're just arguing for arguments sake and you're looking like a giant idiot in the process.

[Yankee Tripper]

The modern pitching staff has 5 starters. The number 3 is in the middle of 5. Middle as in 'average' of. Are you trying to be obtuse now?

I would like to point out the modern pitching staff rarely if ever gets 162 starts from just 5 pitchers. A #3 starter is likely "better than average".

And as Melancynic correctly points out, not all #3s are created equal.

Just look at the Cubs, Kyle Hendrick lead the NL in ERA last year and is their #4 starter.

[Yankee Tripper]

I'm "literally a liar"? I LITERALLY copy and pasted your quote. Here, I'll quote it again and provide the exact link:


http://www.nyyfansforum.com/showthre...=1#post8262424

Matt Harvey isn't a #3 just because he's a #3 on a great staff. A #3 is someone who averages about 1.8-2.1 WAR a season, as that would usually put them in the 70-80 range for MLB starters. Someone like Drew Smyly or Ivan Nova. The distribution is quite easy to explain:

There are 30 #1's. There are 30 #2's, and so on. Some teams, like the Padres, do not have a #1 quality pitcher. Some teams, like the Mets, have multiple #1s. Now, you can call someone on the Padres their #1, and that's fine, but when you say a prospect has the ceiling of a #3, you're not talking about a specific team anymore because that would make no sense.

At least with the 'fringe prospect' thing you were debating a term that doesn't have an exact meaning (demonstrated by the tweets you received where different guys said different things, and my posts where different web sites had different standards). But with this? You're just arguing for arguments sake and you're looking like a giant idiot in the process.

Last year there were only 74 pitchers who threw enough innings to qualify for the ERA title.

[ClownPickle]

Last year there were only 74 pitchers who threw enough innings to qualify for the ERA title.

Yeah. It's pretty silly to only look at qualified lefty SPs as a measure of average SP velocity.

[DaBliz]

I would like to point out the modern pitching staff rarely if ever gets 162 starts from just 5 pitchers. A #3 starter is likely "better than average".

And as Melancynic correctly points out, not all #3s are created equal.

Just look at the Cubs, Kyle Hendrick lead the NL in ERA last year and is their #4 starter.

I think it's fair at this point to state that there are #6s and #7s and so on. Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that there are 30 teams in the league and you can create an even distribution in order to state that there are tiers of 30. The odds are that if you pick #15 in the league, he'll be the #1 on an average team. The odds are that if you pick #45 in the league, he'd be the #2 on an average team.

Yes, Kyle Hendrick is their #4, but that doesn't mean he's a #4.

Also, while there were only 74 pitchers to qualify for the ERA title, there were 310 who had at least one start. There were 150 that pitched over 70 innings and there were 150 that made 14 starts. I don't know why the arbitrary ERA title amount matters in this discussion.

[DaBliz]

Yeah. It's pretty silly to only look at qualified lefty SPs as a measure of average SP velocity.

Do your own research then. I went through it and did it by hand, but you are more than welcome to use my data and expand it out to every starting lefty to throw 70+ innings. Seriously, please do it. I'd love to have an even more accurate figure.

I'll be waiting, but I have a feeling that research isn't your forte. Unbridled pessimism and criticism is.

[sfischer89]

Can you guys debate the merits of a hot dog being a sandwich next?