Written by Greg Fertel | 13 June 2007

Goldstein being interviewed by Steve Goldman:

How fast will Ian Kennedy come? He's now at Trenton and pitching well there. When will we wake up and find out that he's not that good? Define not that good. I could find scouts last year when Kennedy was finishing up at Southern Cal who would say that this guy could be a fourth starter in the big leagues right now. But you ask, what's his ceiling? Fourth starter. That's his ceiling, too. He was maybe the safest pick in the draft, because it was impossible to see him anything as other than a fourth or fifth starter. He'll never be exposed as being bad, he'll be exposed as being not that good, as an average pitcher. Last time I checked that pays $9 or $10 million a year.

I have to say that I am very disappointed in Kevin Goldstein. He certainly is a well rounded prospect expert who knows as much about these guys as anyone in the business. However, Baseball Prospectus sets itself apart from other publications by bringing science to baseball. Where is the objective analysis here Kevin? Where is the careful evaluation? Isn't this what you guys freed baseball from? My first question is, what the hell is a 4th starter? These terms are tossed around all of the time and it completely confounds me that no one can really pin it down. The Hardball Times did a series of studies on starting rotations, concluding that if you can keep your ERA under 4.00, you are one of the best #3 starters in the league, and better than most #2 starters. If you can hover around 3.50, you're one of the best in the league. The average "#4 starter" had an ERA of 5.10 in the major leagues last year. So now that we don't even know how good you think that Ian Kennedy can really be, we have to guess at your reasoning. The knock against Kennedy? Average fastball velocity. That's it. Kennedy's strengths?

1. He's in perfect health.
2. He has 3 above average offspeed pitches, one plus.
3. He has great control.
4. He has a track record of absolute dominance.
5. By all accounts, he has great makeup.

I'd like to focus on #4 right now, the only truly undisputed (read: scientific) bullet point on that list. Go ahead, click on that link and take a look at Ian Kennedy's statistical record. First two seasons in college? ERAs of 2.54 and 2.91. K/9s of 12.2 and 11.7. BB/9s of 3.01 and 2.92. Strong HR/9, K/BB, H/9. His "bad" junior year? K/9 of 9.00, ERA of 3.90, BB/9 of 3.19. Not great, but not bad either. Why does Kennedy's mind-blowing first two years all of the sudden get knocked around by an only above average junior year? Maybe Kenndy wouldn't transition well to professional baseball? You know, because since entering he's struck out 133 batters in 109 2/3 innings? Since he mowed through the Florida State League with a 1.29 ERA and a K/BB of 3.6 this season? If Kennedy threw 90-92 instead of 88-91, he'd be given credit for all of his accomplishments. I'm not asking for guys like Kevin to completely abandon all scouting analysis - I'm just asking for them to filter it. Ian Kennedy is a top pitching prospect. Ian Kennedy has not faltered. Why assume that he will? What in his objective record makes you think that he will? I've compared Kennedy to Mike Mussina in the past, yet even I recognize that Kennedy isn't going to be as good as Moose. He walks a few more, and has a little bit less of a curveball. Still, Mussina is a lofty comparison, but why can't Kennedy be one of those guys every few years who comes along and deals with authority despite less than stellar velocity? Why write him off so quickly as an average pitcher?

< Prev		Next >