Here is the a little piece from Keith Laws latest chat.

What are your thoughts on Scott Diamond? If Trout wasn't such a showoff, he'd be in the ROY discussion. Can he have long term success as a #3 type starter who induces a lot of ground balls?

[h=6]Klaw (1:50 PM)

[/h]

Fifth starter, if that.

I respect Keith Laws opinion on most things, but this one is dead wrong.

I want to say he's wrong. I just don't know how to argue against his opinion.... I mean, his K/9 is lower than Nick Blackburn's when Blackburn was league average his first two years as a starter. He's the Twins #1, and next year even if they bring in two good pitchers, he's still the Twins #3... but it's hard to call him a #3 long term...

I also think that Law might be looking at the ideal 5th starter, not necessarily the Twins' 5th starter. If Diamond was the 5th starter on your team, you would take that. If he is your ace, odds are, your team is 20 games under .500.

That is a valid point, but even when Blackburn was at his peak he did not come close to being as effective as Diamond is right now. I believe Diamond can be a valid number three, four at the lowest. The stuff is there, he has posted numbers like this at almost every level he has played at. But if people want to discredit that he can continue the success he is having now, like they did with Revere, so be it.

Diamond's ERA/Win Total etc.. are all very good right now, but as Seth says, like Blackburn, he's doing what he's doing in a non-typical fashion for a #1 or even #3 type starter, which is pretty much unsustainable long term. Keith Law's point I think is that if you look how some define #1 through #5 type starters, Diamond would fall into the #5 category. Look at who the Twins have in their starting rotation right now, of course Diamond is the Twins #1 this year, but an individual team's #1 or #3 is often times a lot different than a scout's classification of a #1 or #3. I'd say every starter the Twins are rolling out right now falls into the "fifth starter" category, most probably the "borderline fifth starter/spot starter" in actuality.

Law's comment is very consistent with his view on Diamond when the Diamond/Bullock trade went down. He's incredulous that Diamond can have sustained success, which, given Diamond's strikeout rate is understandable.

That said, what I wrote about recent (http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?903-Why-Minnesota-Twins-Scott-Diamond-Continues-to-Shine) shows that Diamond does have enough tools to continue to be a good pitcher. He's got the high release point which helps him change planes. He's got the effective velocity where his fastball/curve look very similar and fools hitters. He works quickly and out in front of the count avoiding walks. Those are all traits of someone able to be a good starter.

Like everyone else here seems to be insinuating, it just depends on whose rotation Diamond is in whether or not he is a fifth starter.

  Quote

I mean, his K/9 is lower than Nick Blackburn's when Blackburn was league average his first two years as a starter.

I don't see Blackburn's track record as a fair comparison for Diamond.

Technically, Diamond's 4.9 K/9 is higher than Blackburn's 4.5 in '08 and 4.3 in '09 and Diamond's swinging strike rate is higher as well, not to mention, his ground ball rate (56%) is far better than Blackburn's (45% in both '08 & '09).

It will be ok gentleman Mr. Law has over projocted many more prospects than he has under. A very safe answer from him and I wonder how many starts he actually seen as opposed to jumping on fan graphs. Mr. Hagler is right in that there seems to be something there with the the debth of Diamonds pitches. He pitches like he's 6'7". BTW Jack Morris had a k rate (5.9) below league average in 91 and nobody thinks of him anything but an ace #1 type.

Parker, based on having just a 45% GB rate in 2008 and 2009, how did Blackburn get this perception of a ground ball pitcher?

Probably because Gardy gave Blackburn the nickname of Groundy and it just stuck.

But seriously, thanks for the input guys.

  Quote

Parker, based on having just a 45% GB rate in 2008 and 2009, how did Blackburn get this perception of a ground ball pitcher?

Good question and I don't have an answer as to why he received that label while being average-ish in that departmen. He always had a sinker and had high GB rates in AA and AAA (52%). What made him likely perceived as a ground ball pitcher is because he had so many well-played grounders in 2008 and 2009. In his first full season, he was second in the AL with 31 double plays and added 14 more in 2009.

  Seth Stohs;bt3760 said:

Parker, based on having just a 45% GB rate in 2008 and 2009, how did Blackburn get this perception of a ground ball pitcher?

Because the Twins had to come up with some sort of narrative to support the illusion that his success was sustainable.

I think that Diamond could be a 3rd starter. His numbers this year show that. Law is a scout type. I bet his opinion of Brad Radke was the same (bottom of the rotation starter.) Just some pitcher pitch better than their stuff (ask Mr Maddux) and Diamond (not that am comparing him to that) has been doing it this season. Will he sustain the success? Maybe. But compared to the ones (DickNBert) who are calling him an "Ace", Law is closer to the reality.

I am optomistic that Diamond can be a decent #5 for the long haul with possiblitliy of being a #4 or better in stretches. That is much more valuable than anthing Blacky ever was.

I just hope the FO learned their lesson from signing Blacky to an extension based on one luck based campaign. Ride out Diamond's cheap years as a usable starting pitcher and if he regresses to what Law sees you just dump him for the next flavor of the month.

I can see the argument behind calling Diamond a #4 but I can't get behind calling him a #5 pitcher. He has pitched too well and too consistently to be graded that low on the scale. Personally, I think he slots more as a guy who can teeter between a #3/4 depending on season because of the things Parker mentioned. He'll get roughed up and then he'll pitch a gem.

It'd be nice if he missed a few more bats, though.

His stuff looks 4/5 to me, but his results say he could be a 3 long term. There aren't many 1s in the majors, less than 30 for sure......Frankly, if he's a 3/4, that's a good, valuable player. Any player can have success for a year or two, the real test to me will be next year. If this level of success is sustained, then I'll be more of a believer that he's "really" a 3. Either way, I think he's good enough to be a legit MLB starter, and the Twins should be happy he's here right now.

  twinswon1991;bt3772 said:

I just hope the FO learned their lesson from signing Blacky to an extension based on one luck based campaign.

His luck actually lasted for two seasons - his 08 and 09 seasons are just about identical. (ERAs within .02, WHIP within .06, So/9 dropped .2, BB/9 was the same, W-L identical - few people have two seasons in a row that are that similar.)

The problem is there were warning signs the whole time. The league eventually figures out guys that don't miss bats. Sometimes a young pitcher will start with a low SO/9 and then take a leap forward in the second year (Radke). Blackburn started too low and went (slightly) lower.

Even at his peak, he was a #4 type starter, and those are the kind of guys you find after you build the core of the team. They aren't the guys you lock up as the core.

Keith Law espn.com chat, 1987.

Terry from Atlanta: "Hey keith, love your work, Tom Glavine is having an ok season for the Braves and looks like he'll get some ROY votes. What do y think his future holds?"

Klaw: "Fifth starter on a bad team, long reliever on a good one."