Wrong thread.Montero for Pineda creates an opening on offense...is this the time for Prince Fielder to sign w/ Yankees?
Like, better away from Safeco?What are peoples thoughts about Pineda? He has a great K/BB ratio but his home run totals were pretty high. He was also a completely different pitcher away from Safeco.
Split | K/9 | BB/9 | K/BB | HR/9 | K% | BB% | FIP | xFIP | |
2011 | Home | 9.6 | 3.3 | 2.9 | 1.1 | 27% | 9% | 3.62 | 3.51 |
2011 | Away | 8.7 | 2.6 | 3.4 | 0.9 | 24% | 7% | 3.26 | 3.55 |
Yeah, this, he will still develop (hopefully), he's just doing it while already in MLB and having two pretty devastating pitches already.Your point is good, Rough, but if Pineda ever makes his changeup into even an average pitch, he could truly be lights out. And a lot of guys are still getting a feel for a change at his age.
Pineda is only eight months older than Anthony Ranaudo, who was nothing special at Salem last season, and 17 months older than Matt Barnes, who has never thrown a pitch in professional baseball. He's certainly young enough to get his third pitch working.
Latos and Pineda are very similar pitchers. Both are large, intimidating, powerful figures on the mound as Latos stands 6-foot-6 and is listed at 225 pounds while Pineda's vitals tell us he is 6-foot-7 and 260 pounds. Both routinely throw their fastballs in the mid-90s and have good control. But their similarities transfer over to their stats, too. Latos broke into the big leagues in July of 2009 while Pineda saw his first major league action in the Mariners' fifth game of last season. Latos' career consists of 72 starts while Pineda has 28. But outside of the difference in experience, they are very much alike. Pineda is a little over a year younger, having signed as an International Free Agent whereas Latos signed out of high school. Latos had a 2.49 ERA and 1.06 WHIP while striking out 10.5 batters-per-nine and walking just 2.3 per nine in his minor league career. Pineda had an identical minor league ERA, a 1.08 WHIP, 8.8 SO/9 and 2.1 BB/9. Both young, right-handed power pitchers that have enjoyed early success in the major leagues, too.
Latos compiled a 3.37 ERA and 3.28 FIP while accumulating 7.3 WAR over 429 2/3 innings for the Padres while striking out 8.65 batters-per-nine, walking 2.83 per nine giving him a 23.5% strikeout percentage and a 7.7% walk percentage. He has also allowed just 0.82 HR/9, thanks in part to a nice 42.8% ground ball rate. Pineda's rookie season saw him net a 3.74 ERA, 3.42 FIP and 3.4 WAR in 171 innings with 9.11 SO/9 and 2.89 BB/9 -- good for a 24.9% strikeout percentage and 7.9% walk percentage -- while allowing just 0.95 HR/9 and inducing a 36.3% ground ball rate.
Similar pitchers who've accumulated similar statistics working with a similar repertoire. That said, they aren't identical twins, so it isn't a slam dunk to assume that the trade package that the Reds sent to the Padres would've also been offered to the Mariners. But while Latos has a fourth pitch, more experience and a more polished and effective slider, Pineda is younger, more even-keeled and comes with one more season of cheap club control. So in ways, Pineda could be seen as even more valuable on the trade market.
Dave Righetti had a better, albeit strike-shortened, year than Pineda in 1981, when he was 22.I can't remember NY having a SP coming off of this strong of an age 22 season with this much potential, maybe since I've been following the team (1975, when I was 8). Mel Stottlemyre and Whitey Ford both had great years before 23 (although much less than 170 innings), but I can't come up with anyone since then.
Ooh, good call.Dave Righetti had a better, albeit strike-shortened, year than Pineda in 1981, when he was 22.
He is only 22 so I imagine he will develop additional pitches like a change or splitter. Until he does he might have a rough go of it to start with the smaller parks and better hitting in the AL East. That said, if he can stay healthy he should improve, so there may be plenty of upside to be seen over the next 5 cost controlled years.This sort of fits the characterization in a previous post of a guy who has two pitches and nothing more. The really good offenses will pick one and pound it.
That was just innings limits and his second half really wasn't much different from his first except for ERA (FIP was very close). Not sure if this Cameron piece has been linked here yet, but either way, here you go:He missed some time in September followed by a quick hook (4 IP, 81 pitches) in his final start make you wonder if the Mariners know or suspect something about his health, especially given he missed a lot of 2009 with elbow issues and his 2nd half performance was not that great. Could be nothing, but it's probably the only concern the Yankees should have about this deal. I imagine the deal is pending a physical so they will probably look at that pretty closely.
He threw 139 IP in 2010 so that makes sense.That was just innings limits and his second half really wasn't much different from his first except for ERA (FIP was very close). Not sure if this Cameron piece has been linked here yet, but either way, here you go:
http://www.fangraphs...pinedas-splits/
Sure.G38 nailed it of course. A steal for the Yankees IF Pinedas arm is sound.
That IF is the key to the deal. Remember, the Mariners passed on Montero when it came time for them to trade Cliff Lee and lose his last 15 starts of 2009. What changed since 2009 that they were willing to trade 5 years of cost controlled Pineda for Montero.
Maybe the Mariners just do not have a clue and have simply changed their mind on Montero and the value of offense, or maybe they do not think Pinedas arm is sound.
At the very least, the Yankees will give his arm a thorough exam before the deal is finally approved (or they already have).If he had any sort of serious arm troubles, I doubt the Yankees would be coughing Montero up for him. That just doesn't make sense.
Right, but if the Mariners were comfortable enough with his arm, his mechanics, and his repertoire to be certain that he would be able to contribute as a top of the rotation starter for the next 5 years, then they would never have traded him. Even if the Mariners view Montero as a C, this is a difficult trade to figure without considering the attrition rate of young pitchers in general, and the risks that might be associated with Pineda (injury projections and/or performance decline) in the next few years.If he had any sort of serious arm troubles, I doubt the Yankees would be coughing Montero up for him. That just doesn't make sense.
The low 3/4 arm slot might make the change- up a little more of a problem to perfect. Pineda is similar to Contreras in his arm slot and delivery. Contreras settled on a forkball instead of a change.
Seattle has a really terrible offense, has no help coming in the minors any time soon and even has issues as a basement dweller in attracting prime free agents. Not having every M's hitting inning being a snoozefest will be a financial plus: true baseball fans may really appreciate a well pitched game but the casual fan digs the long ball. Even if Seattle ends on the short end of the WAR calculation, if the gate improves, I doubt Jack Z cares.Right, but if the Mariners were comfortable enough with his arm, his mechanics, and his repertoire to be certain that he would be able to contribute as a top of the rotation starter for the next 5 years, then they would never have traded him. Even if the Mariners view Montero as a C, this is a difficult trade to figure without considering the attrition rate of young pitchers in general, and the risks that might be associated with Pineda (injury projections and/or performance decline) in the next few years.
Maybe not 95mph, but there is definitely a theory of evolution that supports the idea that man evolved specifically with the throwing motion being a deciding factor in who got to procreate more. I hear this point made all the time, that man isn't really supposed to throw, but it goes against everything I learned in my otherwise useless anthro degree.Well, isn't the likely reason pretty obvious? They progressively hurt their arms. 95 mph and a crackling curve at age 22 becomes 93 mph and a still very good curve at 26 etc etc. Some refine their command enough to make up the difference for a while. Others don't. And some fall apart physically much too fast to ever compensate. Throwing a baseball overhand at 95 mph is not something the human body was designed to do all the time.
You're right that I overstated that. But isn't it becoming an accepted item of conventional wisdom that pitchers throw their fastest at age 22-24 or something like that and (absent conditioning improvements or improvements in mechanics) go downhill from there?Maybe not 95mph, but there is definitely a theory of evolution that supports the idea that man evolved specifically with the throwing motion being a deciding factor in who got to procreate more. I hear this point made all the time, that man isn't really supposed to throw, but it goes against everything I learned in my otherwise useless anthro degree.
Edit: some articles to back me up
/offtopic
Perhaps, but one must take into account that the natural selection of throwers is probably biased towards being able to throw early in life rather than later. You were hunting from a very young age and dying pretty young as well. I don't know if we have been naturally selected to throw past the age of 30. Also, throw a ball is different than throwing a spear or whipping a sling around. I am also not sure how early tools were designed to throw spears farther, but the atlatl is a pretty early tool.Maybe not 95mph, but there is definitely a theory of evolution that supports the idea that man evolved specifically with the throwing motion being a deciding factor in who got to procreate more. I hear this point made all the time, that man isn't really supposed to throw, but it goes against everything I learned in my otherwise useless anthro degree.
Edit: some articles to back me up
/offtopic
I think its pretty safe to say there is a steep decline in MPH after somewhere around 26-28, in fact those links rembrat posted above go over that and even have some additional stuff linked off of them with more detail.You're right that I overstated that. But isn't it becoming an accepted item of conventional wisdom that pitchers throw their fastest at age 22-24 or something like that and (absent conditioning improvements or improvements in mechanics) go downhill from there?
It is indeed, but we were throwing rocks before we were chucking spears, especially earlier than using 'spear chuckers'. But you're definitely right in your larger point, by about the same time we think pitchers start to break down most early humans were considered old.Perhaps, but one must take into account that the natural selection of throwers is probably biased towards being able to throw early in life rather than later. You were hunting from a very young age and dying pretty young as well. I don't know if we have been naturally selected to throw past the age of 30. Also, throw a ball is different than throwing a spear or whipping a sling around. I am also not sure how early tools were designed to throw spears farther, but the atlatl is a pretty early tool.