The Wright Fit?

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

 

"[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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.