Written by Greg Fertel
|
04 April 2007
Mike and I have been having a good time sparring
back and
forth. It's time to deliver the knock out punch.
Our arguments have been arranged around a few premises. First off, most of Mike's case (here I am, slipping in to
Parliamentary Debate mode) revolves around his premise that Tyler Clippard's primary weapon is deception. Second, we both go off in a side argument about whether or not Clippard can remain healthy in the majors. I'll handle them seperately.
I think that Mike and I disagree on some key points here. First off, the deception point. I'm not denying that Clippard has some mild decpetive qualities to his motion, but it is not a primary weapon of his. Yusi Petit was famous for his deceptive delivery, and it came back to bite him.
Now, Mike makes the fair point that pitchers who rely on deception tend to lose their faculties once hitters have the chance to adjust. However, there is a contradiction here. If hitters adjust to Clippard, then why did he finish so much stronger in 2006 than he began? We all know the story by now, but Clippard was arguably
better than Hughes come August, including that magical no hitter. Mike talks a lot about adjustment, and I think Clippard clearly showed that he is capable of said adjustment. And even when he was having trouble in May and June, Clippard still struck out a batter per inning.
I don't doubt that Clippard will spend some time adjusting to a new league, but that's completely normal. I'm not expecting him to be ready right away for the majors. However, I think we need to give him the benefit of the doubt that he'll continue his consistent performance.
Mike calls Clippard's curveball 'average', and I call it a plus pitch. This is a major point of contention. If we operate under the assumption that Clippard has an average to below average fastball, average curveball, and average changeup, then I can understand Mike's concerns. However,
the consensus on Clippard is that his curveball is above average to plus. Combine that with an average or better changeup and above average control and I think you have a pitcher who has a credible enough repetoire to legitimize his prospect status.
When we talk about comparisons, I think that the Aaron Sele comparison is still valid. Injuries derailed his career, but while he was healthy and in his prime Sele was a solid above average starting pitcher. Those 200+ IP, 115 ERA+ years were no accident. That's exactly what I expect out of Clippard.
Let's talk about health. Mike and I completely agree that the 162 game schedule is the defining characteristic of major league baseball. It's one of the reasons why Tyler Clippard is so valuable. I understand the argument that you make about Clippard translating his minor league success to the major leagues, but in reality I don't think it carries any weight. Yes, the season is longer, and yes I'm sure some guys have trouble adjusting to travel schedules, but Clippard holds up no obvious red flags. You cite his lankiness, but Clippard has been slowly putting on weight and is by all accounts over 200 lbs entering this season. I don't see the red flag here.
Instead, I see value simply in his ability to take the ball every fifth day. Jeff Sackmann of THT really helped me understand this when
he looked at starting rotations. Once injuries are factored in, the average MLB team throws out a 5th starter with an ERA over 6. If Clippard can put together 200 innings of 4.58 ERA just by virtue of taking the ball every 5th day and throwing hittable strikes, he'll be equal to the average MLB #3 starter. I guy like Humberto Sanchez doesn't get us a whole lot when he's sitting on the DL, especially if his replacement is Aaron Small or Kris Wilson.
Now, I believe at the very least that Clippard can put up those innings of 4.58 ERA. However, I also believe that Clippard has the capability - by virtue of his strikeout rates - of going farther. If everything works out, I've pointed out Daren Haren as a comparison, and I think that is a valid one.
I don't expect Clippard to put up a lot of ERAs under 4.00. I don't see that as a problem. Guys like Nate Robertson, Jeff Suppan, Freddy Garcia, Jon Garland, and Chris Capuano are unheralded but vital to major league teams.
I also don't deny that Clippard is not completely without risk (how is that for a triple negative?). He isn't a guarenteed commodity by any means. He has challenges ahead of him, and like any prospect, the odds are against him. Still, I think he has a higher ceiling than Mike believes, by virtue of his performance. Yeah, sometimes you get Yusi Petits out of prospects like Clippard, but sometimes you get success too.
