Article: Let's Talk About Tyler Duffey's Curveball

[TheLeviathan]

To be fair, I think using two Duffey starts to condemn scouting reports is perhaps a greater example of an over-reach based on a small sample...

Good thing no one did that.

 

Plenty of places you can go for evidence of this issue, start with Delmon Young fielding reports. Those always give me a chuckle.

Edited August 22, 2015 by TheLeviathan

[DocBauer]

It's wicked. It's Ice Cube/Korn Wicked. Non-Twins announcers have been "like What?"

 

If he adds a changeup that he can throw 10% of the time and continue to control that OKish fastball, he could be very good.

Funny you should mention that! I believe the Twins have a pitching coach now that happens to specialize the change up!

[DocBauer]

Couple things to consider about Duffy;

 

It's 2015, he was drafted in 2012. College or not, that's a quick climb. And his climb has also been steady, never really stationed/stuck/strands anywhere for long. Just production and climb.

 

He's still relatively new to being a SP. still learning all the prep and nuisances. And as mentioned, a better change and POOF, an even better pitcher.

 

I was in favor of the Nolasco signing and the Santana signing. (Verdict is still very much out on Satana) I don't think injury/bad luck is a call for easy 20/20 revisionist history. But right now, I wish there was a way of unloading both without completing killing us, and run with Hughes, Gibson, May, Berrios, Milone and Duffey as out 6 running in to 2016.

 

Could be good. Could be fun. And could definitely be something to run with for a while.

[USAFChief]

Good thing no one did that.

.

No one did that?

 

There are calls for Duffey to be in the rotation next year, based on three starts.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Good thing no one did that.

Pretty sure you used Duffey as an example of the problems with scouting reports? Or was it just coincidence you brought it up in this thread?

 

Not to mention your dubious claim that "everyone just takes these reports at face value." Just because people cite them doesn't mean they aren't aware of their limitations.

Edited August 22, 2015 by spycake

[TheLeviathan]

 

Pretty sure you used Duffey as an example of the problems with scouting reports? Or was it just coincidence you brought it up in this thread?

Not to mention your dubious claim that "everyone just takes these reports at face value." Just because people cite them doesn't mean they aren't aware of their limitations.

 

I said it was another small piece of evidence.  And it is.  And, yes, most people do put far too much stock into these reports.

 

It took two years of near incompetence by Hicks in the OF before anyone would even mention publicly that he wasn't as good as advertised.  People talk about reports with phrases like "we know he'll bring good defense" or "we know he'll take walks" or "we know he has plus stuff".  I would suggest the majority of people that cite these reports don't take them with nearly the grain of salt they should.

[Otto von Ballpark]

It has been two good starts. Which is probably a smaller sample than the scouting reports you claim are invalidated.

[TheLeviathan]

 

It has been two good starts. Which is probably a smaller sample than the scouting reports you claim are invalidated.

 

Whew.  Good thing I never said they were invalidated either!  Can we be done with the strawmen now?

 

The point is simple - people don't realize how small a sample most scouts have of the players they profile and should read those reports with a larger grain of salt than they do.

[sploorp]

 

With those bad contracts to Hughes, Nolasco, and now Santana, what do we do with these young starting pitchers?

Why not start promoting some of that surplus to the bullpen? It can use all the help it can get.  I would even be okay with the team resigning Pelfry if I knew with 100% certainty that he would be a permanent bullpen guy.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

I would bet there is a whole lot of groupthink and consensus opinion that goes into those industry rankings. They are basically accurate but the organizations who rely on them most are not going to have any meaningful advantage. Maybe in some weird way, that does invalidate them. I am thinking of the rankings for the amateur draft here.

 

I'd also bet the Twins knew Duffey had a faster spinning curve than the scouting reports said, and that's why he was promoted somewhat quicker than expected.

[Otto von Ballpark]

Whew. Good thing I never said they were invalidated either! Can we be done with the strawmen now?

 

The point is simple - people don't realize how small a sample most scouts have of the players they profile and should read those reports with a larger grain of salt than they do.

You did say Duffey's two starts were "more evidence" of the imprecision of scouting reports. Just seemed a little premature (and ironic, given your imprecision claim was based on the scouting sample being too small).

 

Put another way, I don't think a 45 scouting grade means a guy can't occasionally exceed the level. Just like a guy with 45 power can go on a little HR binge, it isn't evidence that the scouting report is necessarily wrong.

 

If Duffey can keep showing this curve and getting good results from it for a year or two at this level, which we all hope he does, that's the better time to really say the scouting report missed something.

Edited August 22, 2015 by spycake