Article: The Wright Fit?

[drivlikejehu]

A healthy Gibson would have gone much higher in the 2009 draft, but also been much more likely to succeed in the Majors - it makes zero sense to negatively comp Wright comp to Gibson when the Gibson from these scouting reports never existed as a professional.

Edited June 7, 2017 by drivlikejehu

[drjim]

 

A healthy Gibson would have gone much higher in the 2009 draft, but also been much more likely to succeed in the Majors - it makes zero sense to negatively comp Wright comp to Gibson when the Gibson from these scouting reports never existed as a professional.

 

Gibson strikes me as a good representation of Wright's floor, which would require Wright to suffer a series of very serious injuries.

[Lonestar]

That scouting report (2009 Kyle Gibson preDraft), puts him right there with Wright.  Comparatively for their respective drafts, Gibson was rated as having better command and control. Gibson rated as having better secondary pitches. While Wright gets the nod for velo and fastball stuff.  I know it might be Revisionist history and many of you are tainted by present day Gibson but coming out of the draft Kyle was considered a stud, then baseball happened.

 

BA on Wright

 

 

his fastball command improved to solid-average as he dialed it back a bit to 92-95 mph, and that opened the way for him to get to his plus secondary stuff. Wright's slider is a hard mid-80s pitch with late life and at times cutter shape that can be plus; his curveball, his preferred breaking ball, has plus shape and power at around 80 mph. Teams laid off the curveball early when he wasn't throwing his fastball for strikes, and he needs to land both breaking balls for strikes more consistently going forward. Some scouts prefer the slider over his curve, though Wright throws the curve more often. Wright's power changeup in the upper 80s flashes plus as well with late bottom, though he uses it fairly rarely. Wright's clean arm action, low-maintenance delivery and sturdy 6-foot-4, 220-pound frame help him maintain velocity deep into games, up to 94 mph even into the ninth inning

 

So what you are saying is I didn't overstate Wright's stuff. And Gibson's fastball is a not as good:

"[Gibson] relies on two-seam fastballs more than four-seamers, usually pitching at 88-91 mph with good sink and tailing action, though he can reach back for 94 mph when needed."

 

I don't think these N=1 comparisons are useful. Green's closest comparison would be what -- Matt Harrington? I don't think that is informational. Green certainly doesn't have the plus curves that Kershaw and Gooden had as high schoolers. That is informational.

 

Here's the thing: Green and Wright are widely considered 1A and 1B, not necessarily in that order. KLaw (who loves ceiling) rates Green 1 but understands the case for Wright. Drafting Wright would not make the new regime as bad as the old one. Drafting Green is not automatically wrong.

Edited June 7, 2017 by Lonestar

[Steve Lein]

 

 

 

That scouting report (2009 Kyle Gibson preDraft), puts him right there with Wright.  Comparatively for their respective drafts, Gibson was rated as having better command and control. Gibson rated as having better secondary pitches. While Wright gets the nod for velo and fastball stuff.  I know it might be Revisionist history and many of you are tainted by present day Gibson but coming out of the draft Kyle was considered a stud, then baseball happened.

 

 

I don't agree that the scouting reports going into the draft match for these players. Wright's are better, but that's not because of the "stuff" you're pointing out.

 

Take a look at grades prognosticators give for the pitchers this year. If you only take those into account, Hunter Greene shouldn't even be in the top 10. Fellow high schooler's Mackenzie Gore and Shane Baz would blow him away...

 

Gibson was a mature draftee. You essentially already knew what you were getting with him. That is why he was considered a top-10/15 pick despite not having a high ceiling before his injury.

 

Wright's does have that ceiling despite those reports maybe reading similar. There should be no doubt on who is the better prospect of the two and is why Wright is under consideration for #1.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 7, 2017 by Steve Lein

[Bob Sacamento]

 

So what you are saying is I didn't overstate Wright's stuff. And Gibson's fastball is a not as good:
"[Gibson] relies on two-seam fastballs more than four-seamers, usually pitching at 88-91 mph with good sink and tailing action, though he can reach back for 94 mph when needed."

I don't think these N=1 comparisons are useful. Green's closest comparison would be what -- Matt Harrington? I don't think that is informational. Green certainly doesn't have the plus curves that Kershaw and Gooden had as high schoolers. That is informational.

Here's the thing: Green and Wright are widely considered 1A and 1B, not necessarily in that order. KLaw (who loves ceiling) rates Green 1 but understands the case for Wright. Drafting Wright would not make the new regime as bad as the old one. Drafting Green is not automatically wrong.

No, what I said was that at the times of the draft, Gibson's secondary was considered better than where Wright's secondary is at this point.  Wright had Gibson on FB velo and stuff, Gibson had Wright on command/control.  Am I saying that Wright will be worse than Gibson? No.  Am I saying that Wright will be better than Gibson? No. So what was the purpose of all the Gibson and Wright comparisons?  To temper down expectations and to remind everyone there are no guarantees with the draft, scouting, and health even with "mature" draftees.  

 

As for Hunter Greene, Matt Harrington is nowhere near the comp, not even close.

 

BA on Greene:

 

 

He has an exceptionally athletic delivery with an easy finish, and he pitched mostly at 95-99 throughout the spring of his senior season, with his fastball reaching as high as 102 mph for some scouts, while others had him topping out at 101. He was throwing both a slider and a curveball as a senior, with his slider figuring to be a bigger part of his future. Thrown in the low 80s, the pitch flashes slurvy tilt and earns above-average projections from scouts. He throws all four of his pitches for strikes. Greene has focused on pitching off his fastball and doesn't have as many reps with his offspeed stuff as a result. He flashes feel for his changeup, which scouts feel comfortable projecting given Greene's advanced command and athleticism.

 

 

Even with all that said, I'd still take Wright 1:1 and hope I don't have a Portland Trailblazers scenario where you have to watch one of the elite players for the next decade plus play against you.  (1984 Blazers took Sam Bowie over some guy named Michael Jordan, then in 2007 took Greg Oden over some guy named Kevin Durant)

[kab21]

 

I think the bold is the flaw in this argument, and it's something everyone has been doing across draft threads for months. You can pull all the numbers out of the air you want, but there's no way for sure of knowing who books their first trip to Dr. James Andrews' office first between Greene and Wright.

 

And even if you could, it would get away from what the real risk of drafting first is-- that someone else in the top 5 ends up with a superstar while you end up with a nice, little player.

Come on. There has to be no disagreement that Wright provides a better bet to be a good MLB pitcher than Greene? The question that could be debated is how much of a better chance he has.

Of course there is a chance that someone in the top 5 ends up with a superstar and you merely got Jon Lester (upside) or Ervin Santana (middle ground) but it is also guaranteed a couple of teams got a complete bust. Wright is definitely not a lock (not just to due to TJ risk) to be a good pitcher but the chances are significantly higher than Greene.

[ALessKosherScott]

 

So what you are saying is I didn't overstate Wright's stuff. And Gibson's fastball is a not as good:
"[Gibson] relies on two-seam fastballs more than four-seamers, usually pitching at 88-91 mph with good sink and tailing action, though he can reach back for 94 mph when needed."

I don't think these N=1 comparisons are useful. Green's closest comparison would be what -- Matt Harrington? I don't think that is informational. Green certainly doesn't have the plus curves that Kershaw and Gooden had as high schoolers. That is informational.

Here's the thing: Green and Wright are widely considered 1A and 1B, not necessarily in that order. KLaw (who loves ceiling) rates Green 1 but understands the case for Wright. Drafting Wright would not make the new regime as bad as the old one. Drafting Green is not automatically wrong.

 

Fair enough. How about this comp? With the names XXXXXXX out except Boras to protect the integrity of it.

 

XXXXX and XXXXXXX have been running neck and neck all spring as the top pitching prospects in college baseball. XXXX moved ahead as the draft approached, though where the two would go in the draft remains uncertain because both have Scott Boras as an adviser. XXXXXXXX says XXXX is the best pitching prospect in school history, a rich tradition that includes XXXXXXX, and his 2.03 career ERA is a XXXXX record. XXXX suffered from draftitis in XXXXX, when he entered his high school senior season as a projected first-round pick, but that hasn't been the case this spring. He has blown away hitters consistently with a 92-97 mph fastball that's as notable for its sink as for its velocity. He's adept at getting grounders or strikeouts, depending on the situation. He has refined a straight changeup that will be a plus pitch and keeps lefthanders in check. He also has tightened his curveball and become more consistent with it. Add in a perfect pitcher's frame, good control and a competitive makeup, and the only thing that really bothers scouts about XXXX is Boras. XXXX could fall to XXXXX--where the XXXXX have a scouting director who used to coach at XXXXXXX and an owner who has signed Boras free agents the last two offseasons (XXXXXXX)--or perhaps further.

[ALessKosherScott]

 

Come on. There has to be no disagreement that Wright provides a better bet to be a good MLB pitcher than Greene? The question that could be debated is how much of a better chance he has.

Of course there is a chance that someone in the top 5 ends up with a superstar and you merely got Jon Lester (upside) or Ervin Santana (middle ground) but it is also guaranteed a couple of teams got a complete bust. Wright is definitely not a lock (not just to due to TJ risk) to be a good pitcher but the chances are significantly higher than Greene.

 

I don't buy Lester as a high-end comp or Ervin Santana as the mid-range comp. Getting to Santana means developing better breaking stuff for Wright, which isn't a given. Getting to Lester means you have to take a 55 curveball and a 55 change up and make them both 65-70 pitches.More often than not, college pitchers like Wright get to the big leagues, but they're back-half of the rotation guys who get 110 to 130 strikeouts over the course of 200 innings. There are also guys like Wright who don't make it, and injury doesn't play a role in it.

 

Does that make Greene less of a question mark? No. He has to develop, too. At the end of the day the one you pick is the one you think you can teach a change up to. Maybe that's Wright. But what if it isn't?

 

[kab21]

 

I don't buy Lester as a high-end comp or Ervin Santana as the mid-range comp. Getting to Santana means developing better breaking stuff for Wright, which isn't a given. Getting to Lester means you have to take a 55 curveball and a 55 change up and make them both 65-70 pitches.More often than not, college pitchers like Wright get to the big leagues, but they're back-half of the rotation guys who get 110 to 130 strikeouts over the course of 200 innings. There are also guys like Wright who don't make it, and injury doesn't play a role in it.

 

Does that make Greene less of a question mark? No. He has to develop, too. At the end of the day the one you pick is the one you think you can teach a change up to. Maybe that's Wright. But what if it isn't?

You do know that I wasn't comparing Wright to Santana nor Lester do you? I was putting a performance level target for them.

 

By your analysis you don't seem to like Wright and I would conclude that you don't think he should be an option in the top 10 or perhaps even the first rd if that is where you project him.

 

That is fair but that seems to be in disagreement with many others.

[drivlikejehu]

 

I don't buy Lester as a high-end comp or Ervin Santana as the mid-range comp. Getting to Santana means developing better breaking stuff for Wright, which isn't a given. Getting to Lester means you have to take a 55 curveball and a 55 change up and make them both 65-70 pitches.More often than not, college pitchers like Wright get to the big leagues, but they're back-half of the rotation guys who get 110 to 130 strikeouts over the course of 200 innings. There are also guys like Wright who don't make it, and injury doesn't play a role in it.

 

Does that make Greene less of a question mark? No. He has to develop, too. At the end of the day the one you pick is the one you think you can teach a change up to. Maybe that's Wright. But what if it isn't?

 

This is just factually wrong - college pitchers picked at the top of the draft do not typically wind up as back of rotation starters. They usually are pretty good unless they get injured or flame out for another reason. So while there is risk, it's not really a ceiling issue.

[ALessKosherScott]

 

You do know that I wasn't comparing Wright to Santana nor Lester do you? I was putting a performance level target for them.

 

By your analysis you don't seem to like Wright and I would conclude that you don't think he should be an option in the top 10 or perhaps even the first rd if that is where you project him.

 

That is fair but that seems to be in disagreement with many others.

 

Being the resident contrarian, if people were piling unrealistic expectations on Greene, I'd be quick to point that out, too. But here, people are using Greene's faults to make out Wright's stuff to be better than it is. 

 

What's wrong with Wright isn't that he's not good. It's that people are setting the bar to high at what he is right now. Lester's results stem from having one elite pitch (his cutter) two other plus-plus pitches (curve and change) and a good fastball. Santana's results stem from having one of the best sliders in the game, a good fastball and an average changeup. Wright at this moment is a 60-55-55-55 pitch. And the play it safe comp for what Wright can be has to assume he never evolves beyond that.

 

People who get snippy at the Gibson comp don't realize that he was a 60-55-55-55 pitcher coming out of college and never evolved beyond that. The other scouting report above is Mike Pelfrey's, and to me he's also a great comp for what Wright might be. The team that drafts Wright is doing it because there's value in that.

 

To me the question to debate is would a safe bet at the next Kyle Gibson worth passing up someone who might shine Liriano v. 2006 bright-- even if it's only for one year? I know Terry Ryan would answer yes. That answer is also part of the reason he was fired.

 

Edited June 9, 2017 by ALessKosherScott

[Willihammer]

I do think the Lester comp is kinda random. On what basis is that his ceiling?

[Willihammer]

I like Wright, more than McKay at this point. I'd love to have him in the system. But, I remain skeptical he's a 1-1 talent. His college career, while very good, just doesn't compare to the best college arms taken before him. Which is where he'd have to be in order to take on the risk of an arm at 1-1, IMO.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?draft_type=junreg&query_type=overall_pick&from_type_jc=0&from_type_hs=0&from_type_4y=0&from_type_unk=0

[ALessKosherScott]

I like Wright, more than McKay at this point. I'd love to have him in the system. But, I remain skeptical he's a 1-1 talent. His college career, while very good, just doesn't compare to the best college arms taken before him. Which is where he'd have to be in order to take on the risk of an arm at 1-1, IMO.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/draft/?draft_type=junreg&query_type=overall_pick&from_type_jc=0&from_type_hs=0&from_type_4y=0&from_type_unk=0

If you could take the best feature of Greene, Wright and McKay and combine them together into one player you'd have a legit number one pick. You can't, but still. As it stands, this is a giant game of Let's Make A Deal. You have to pick a door and hope you hear a giant wa-wa sound. You can't get rid of the risk. And there'a a chance the grand prize is behind the Alex Faedo or David Peterson door.

 

On the bright side, it's a deep draft of risks and you also have chances at 35 and 37 to win.

[drjim]

Just saw a comp of a bigger, stronger version Kris Benson.

 

That might actually be pretty accurate. Benson had some talent, but was ridden pretty hard his second year, had some nagging injuries right after and was never the same.

[kab21]

 

I do think the Lester comp is kinda random. On what basis is that his ceiling?

It isn't a comp. It is a performance level with a name. Lester (3.47 career ERA) is outside of the elite pitchers but still really, really good. That seems to be where the sentiment here and in the scouting reports seem to view his upside. That is pretty good imo.

 

Greene however certainly has higher upside. I am not comping him to Kershaw but Greene's upside is that of a top 5 dominant pitcher (thus Kershaw). There is almost definitely a lower chance of Greene reaching this upside and a lower chance that he becomes a useful MLB pitcher in any role. That is the balancing of risk with this pick. It is great to go for broke (an ace) but completely missing on the 1-1 pick also really hurts.

 

Scott continues to point out the downside (if he doesn't improve at all) then he is like Gibson or Pelfrey. That is fair to point out as the downside and that is ultimately (non-injury related) where the floor likely is. But that is only one part of the equation.

 

I would not be upset if Greene was the pick FWIW. I can certainly see the argument of picking Wright and don't think some are giving credit that there is a fair amount of upside possible. It isn't like Minor, Leake or Nola who were safe top ten picks that come to mind in the last decade. Higher floors than Wright but not much upside either.