The Next Phil Hughes?
Posted by Steve L. on June 4th, 2012 · Comments (20)
Well, someone has to pitch to Cito Culver and Dante Bichette Jr. in between the time they’re booted off their Low-A team and the Short-Season starts on Staten Island…
1. Hensley was Baseball America’s 23rd ranked prospect, and the Yanks drafted him at #30, so what’s to knock?
2. Why will Culver and Bichette be demoted?
More from BA:
“They (Yankees) were expected to seek lefthanded pitching this spring, but Oklahoma prep righthander Ty Hensley was too attractive for them to pass on at No. 30.
Hensley has baseball bloodlines and has a fastball that has touched 97, helping him rank No. 23 on the BA 500. He also has a plus curveball that might be a better pitch than his fastball. He’ll need some time to add some polish and improve his command but he has more than just big stuff. He’s bilingual (he speaks Spanish) and scouts like his work ethic and makeup.”
More compiled at River Ave Blues:
Baseball Prospectus: 19th best prospect overall and ninth best pitcher (subs. req’d)
Baseball America: 23rd best prospect overall and 11th best pitcher
MLB.com: 26th best prospect overall and 13th best pitcher
Keith Law: 36th best player overall and 19th best pitcher
@ Evan3457:
See the post that I did today.
HS RHP 1st round draft picks have a “high” success rate of about 8%, give or take.
Call me up when Hensley does something impressive at the AA level or higher. Until then, he’s just another suspect.
Evan3457 wrote:
Have you seen how they started the season at Low-A? Overmatched, completely.
Steve L. wrote:
That’s a perfectly sensible position to take that nevertheless should not mutually exclude the fact that the pick was a good one. You can’t criticize the pick simply because all players below AA are too far from the majors to count on as reliable prospects.
Steve L. wrote:
Culver, yes, absolutely overmatched. Bichette not so. He’s getting on base at a healthy clip and, for any 19 year old to have a feel for the strike zone and still be able to make it to first base without hitting or slugging his way on is a good tool for a prospect to have in his toolkit. The power may develop next year with more comfort and familiarity or it may not. But Bichette is most certainly not being demoted this year unless something dramatically changes.
Culver, however, may be asked to go to extended spring training next year. I doubt they’d demote him for a third visit to Staten Island but I do think he’s going to be in Tampa for most of April and May next year before they let him head back to Charleston. And, even with that said, it’s June 5th today. So much can change over the next two months.
Steve, just out of curiosity, in your world view have the Yankees with Brian Cashman as GM ever done anything right?
lardin wrote:
Sure. He didn’t screw up what Michael and Watson left him at the end of 1997 – and that team went on to win 3 rings.
Here’s the thing with HS pitchers for me.
80% of the guys playing in HS, maybe more, are there just because they’re too old for Little League. So, when you get a freak who’s 6′ 5″ and 225 as a H.S. kid, who is able to throw strikes on a consistent basis, of course he’s going to dominate over the herd of H.S. players.
So, you cannot trust the stats out of H.S.
Then, you have to go by things like the radar gun, etc.
And, we all know there are plenty of pitchers who can throw 90+ who have no business playing in the major leagues. Velo alone is crap.
Better to draft RHP from college were the competition is better and you can get a better read on the pitcher’s ability. If you have to take a HS pitcher, take a LHP, because those can sometimes develop a pitch and lefties are a commodity.
That said, I am not dead set against drafting HS RHP. Just don’t do it in the first round unless the kid is the next Gooden or something. Take someone in the 1st round with less risk. Yes, I know, they all have risk. But, a position player or a college pitcher has less risk than a HS pitcher.
Steve L. wrote:
The opposite side of that coin is less reward. Why would a team ever invest $1M (I assume that’s roughly what the slot bonus will be for the 31st overall pick) to try and capture a low-risk, low-reward player? For $1M, you’d rather get as much upside as you can and then fill in your roster with all the high floor types later.
I understand what you’re saying about prep arms and you’re not wrong that the great majority of these kids — the first rounders, especially — are just physically dominating weaker opposition. That being said, the art (or science) of scouting is not just looking at the radar gun but seeing if the velocity plays up with natural movement, deceptive mechanics, a refined secondary pitch, etc.
Can Hensley make HS hitters look foolish? Yep. Will that translate at the next level? We don’t know. But there seems to be consensus among the evaluators that he’s got a better than average shot of being at least a mid-rotation workhorse. I see nothing wrong with investing $1M or more with that potential future in mind.
I attacked the Culver pick fiercely at the time it was made. He was a clear overreach for the first round — no other team or scouting organization had him in the top 100. This year the Yankees went with a prospect generally regarded as a first-round talent. They stopped trying to be too clever by half. So I won’t knock the pick.
Scout wrote:
I was with you 100% on that attack. We’ll never know why they made the pick and whether it was motivated purely for baseball reasons or if the Yankees were trying to play an unsuccessful game of possum with MLB HQ with respect to the rules governing the Rule IV draft.
Steve L. wrote:
Yep, 3 rings after 2 first round exits around a WS win. Good thing Cashman showed up…
Steve L. wrote:
They’re not just playing against HS competition.
Steve L. wrote:
Like Brien Taylor?
FWIW, you can’t just trust stats out of college either. Regardless of high school or college, if a pitcher throws hard and throws strikes he’s going to get a long look. If he just throws hard, no sense wasting a draft pick on a player that’s a dime a dozen in the DR.
Steve L. wrote:
I don’t think the tale of Culver and Bichette is over.
Evan3457 wrote:
I don’t think so either, only because they’re both so young and there’s still a long time before they’re exposed to minor league waivers. It’s too soon to write anyone off this early in the game (even if Culver does look like he’s a crap player).
MJ Recanati wrote:
He might be, but I am encouraged by the fact that even though he’s hitting .225 with no power, and he’s still drawing a large number of walks. With that batting record, they should just be pounding him with fastballs up in the zone. With his speed, they should be giving him zero free passes.
@ Evan3457:
I hear ya but here’s the thing: he won’t move up to the next level if he can’t hit better and, if/when he does move up, pitchers with greater command will be able to further test his plate discipline.
While it’s great to see him getting on base via the walk, the competition itself isn’t so good that it’s absolutely a sign of a discerning batting eye vs. simply facing high school kids and mid-major college arms that just don’t have advanced command/control of their pitches.
It’s only 10 games, but in the last 10 games:
Cito: .262/.367/.452/.820 with his 1st two HR of the season, 7 BB and only 4 K in these 42 AB. Though none of the 3 teams he faced are among the elite pitching teams in the league, which are really just 2: Savannah and Greensboro.
Bichette: .304/.319/.457/.776 with 4 2B and a HR, but a troubling 12 K and only 1 BB in 46 AB.
Very small sample size, I know. Just sayin.